“Wow, people (especially Cory) are reading way to much into this. Shrilling to the extreme.”

To my ear, that sounds very much like the response of someone who doesn’t believe they’ll be affected, therefore thinks anybody who does is a nutter.

Um, no.

Having recently been on the receiving end of harassment in innocuous circumstances for photography, and having then seen (just in the last two weeks) more of this kind of attitude appearing out of nowhere… It’s very worrying to me.

Let alone, I just don’t understand where the threat is to the people who feel threatened. That is, even if you ascribe the worst possible motives to the photographer, just what is it the photographer is supposed to do with their ill-gotten photonic imprint?

Ah, if only the LAPD had this rule working for them in 1991, think of how much inconvenience could have been avoided by making George Holliday’s videotape illegal.

But yet there are times when cops can require things of people beyond compliance with the law. E.g. when a cop at the scene of a crime says “move along” to someone standing in an otherwise public space, I think that’s more than asking… that’s a situation where the cop requires an action and disobedience would be illegal.

Here’s an example from my life. A person who lives near me accidentally swiped my parked car while driving home. He parked his car on the public street outside his house, and I later went and took pictures of the damage to his car, to support my case against them. I was standing in a public area when I took the pictures. That person complained to the police that I was “harrassing” them, and the police then told me that I am not to go photographing his car on the street again.

Now, I think this request on the part of the police is illegal because there’s no public safety need for me to avoid that public area… the request was made simply because the officer thought that would help defuse the situation.

Does anyone have a pointer to what cops can and can’t require of people, beyond compliance with the law?

“I can think of a few cases in which that decision is perfectly reasonable: a crime scene, traffic accident, fire, or other public safety hazard.”

Could you explain your reasoning as to how a law-abiding citizen taking a photograph would be inappropriate in these situations?

Thanks.

(In other words, I don’t think I or anyone else should need a mechanism. But for now we might, and the Home Secretary’s letter points to how one might if need be use Judicial Review for that purpose.)

Thanks.

xxoo

whos with me?

When you have a traffic accident or fire in urban areas, people will actually stand in the road to snap pics of whatever gore is visible. Police sometimes have to get them to move back so emergency crews can work. Digital cameras and mobile devices make this even more widespread among would-be journalists… a.k.a. bloggers.

As for the “professionals”: some of the more reckless elements of the news industry have been known to cross police lines at a crime scene to try and get a scoop. Once again, the response from the home office was directed at a union of journalists. They know who they are talking to.

HBOBrian – you were harrased for taking pictures? Well, maybe you were dealing with a bad cop. Make some noise about it where it matters. Locally.

You’re missing two big things here: First of all, no one said that cops don’t make mistakes when they stop people from taking pictures. The home office didn’t say it, and I didn’t say it. The home office is making it clear the problems (be it with cops or otherwise) are individual LOCAL issues, not national policy. They are going on record as saying there is no national policy.

There seem to be quite a few people here thinking there is one. I wonder if the incorrect headline has anything to do with it? If anything, I’m pointing out sensationalism and inaccuracy in Cory’s blogging. It could be a full time job, but I already have one.

Rodney King? If the LA cops had gotten their hands on that videotape, it would have disappeared. You and I both know that. However, bad cops being wrong doesn’t change laws. Nothing short of legislature and an improbable decision from a high court could make taking pictures in public illegal.

As a (no longer) potential tourist I’m planning to let her know how I feel about this.

Personal Foul! 5 yards!

The rest of your post is great though.

http://www.clifford.ac/~alan/HomeOfficePhotographyLetter.jpg

Alan Clifford

These decisions are best left to nervous and paranoid public servants to enforce on a case by case basis as they see fit. I’m positive that they will balance personal freedoms with public safety in every case with as little oversight as possible.

I also believe in gnomes.

How is their taking pictures worse than if they were just standing in the same spot looking? I still don’t see this as an example of why one would want to restrict photography. Standing in the road could be problematic, sure, but the camera is irrelevant.

If the Secretary was saying you might need to restrict photography in situation X, and that judgment must be left to local officials, we could evaluate that reasoning. But there is no mention of what reasonable situation that could be, and I for one can’t think of one. It is thus quite natural to jump to thinking of photography being restricted in unreasonable situations, and imagine that the Secretary is endorsing that.

Bla bla bla

“It’s a national official saying “local police may decide, based on the circumstances, that you can’t stand around and take pictures.”"

IE , you have no rights , because if you did it wouldn’t be up to the local police

“I can think of a few cases in which that decision is perfectly reasonable: a crime scene, traffic accident, fire, or other public safety hazard. Also keep in mind this was a response to a journalists’ union. Police are well aware some types of reporters will make things worse by getting in the way: British tabloid journalism is notorious.”

This is total and utter bullshit. If there is a problem with getting in the way , then that is the problem , not the fact that a photo record of a public event is being made. What’s the deal with draging unions , and publishers into this?

Bla bla bla

“A letter was written to the UK home office, and they replied it is an issue that should be handled locally. What part of the third paragraph is unclear? Should big government micromanage everyone and everything? Or just when it’s convenient?”

How is saying that local police should follow the law “big government” micromanaging everyone and everything?
The local police telling people what to do for no good or legal reason sounds a lot more like micromanaging to me
I am quite aware that the UK doesn’t pretend to have many of the rights we have in the US , and won’t even get started on that or all the “in the way” rationalizations.
However I would like some sort of explanation of these rationalizations that somehow there is ever reason that photography should not be allowed in any public place that a member of the public can stand and watch without photographing.
For extra credit , some sort of explanation of why anti big government types are so often police apologists.

#18 I can think of a few cases in which that decision is perfectly reasonable: a crime scene, traffic accident, fire, or other public safety hazard. Also keep in mind this was a response to a journalists’ union. Police are well aware some types of reporters will make things worse by getting in the way: British tabloid journalism is notorious.

and

When you have a traffic accident or fire in urban areas, people will actually stand in the road to snap pics of whatever gore is visible. Police sometimes have to get them to move back so emergency crews can work.

There is already a law against interfering with the duties of a police officer. It is irrelevant whether the interfering act is one of photography, welding, caber tossing, or stamp collecting.

In the absence of interference with emergency or police operations (which is a criminal offence, no need to single out photography), can you come up with any reason why you would not want someone photographing a crime scene, traffic accident, or fire?

I can think of reasons, but they all involve leaving the cops free to perjure themselves or tamper with evidence – no pesky videos to pop up on youtube later. I know you’re much more of an authoritarian than I am, but I would be surprised if you were in favour of outright police-statism.

I didn’t.

You did! You just did it again!

I did not.

You most certainly did! Why… There! You did it again! You can’t take my picture!

I didn’t.

Give me that camera!

What camera? This isn’t a camera.

It is! Give it here!

It’s not.

Stop hopping about and GIVE ME THAT CAMERA!

I won’t.

Come here! Give me that camera!

It’s not a camera. It’s a goldfinch.

No it’s not!

It is.

It is not!

It is.

It’s not. It’s a camera!

It’s a goldfinch.

It. Is…. Come here you!”

Your blog URL goes on your profile page, and no signature line please. Thanks.

Saying you don’t think you should need a mechanism to get badly applied laws overturned seems excessively utopian. By the same token, we shouldn’t need a police force or social security either. The judicial review process is a fundamental under-pinning of modern democracy, and I’d rather have that safeguard than futilely pine for a society that has no need of it; if anything, it’s a shame that the Administrative Court’s powers over parliamentary legislation are so limited.

Firstly, we have confirmation in writing from the Home Secretary (i.e. the politician responsible for what in the US would be termed ‘homeland security’) that there is no law against photography in public places. That alone is helpful when faced with a jobsworth trying to tell you it’s illegal to take pictures without some sort of permission.

Secondly, although the Home Secretary states that police may implement local restrictions, she goes on to say that this is the decision of the regional force Chief Constable. Not part-time PCSO Smith. Or PC Plod. Or even the Inspector (US terms: Lt) running a local policing operation. Yes, the letter says that these people can make decisions on allowing photography – but it goes on to say that they have to be able to point to a policy set by their Chief Constable, not make it up as they go along.

And that helps, because at the level of decision-making a CC is meant to operate at, policy decisions should be based on a proper assessment of all the factors, including the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. So, if the policy is overly restrictive (e.g ‘no photography without a permit applied for a month ahead’) or too vague (‘entirely at the discretion of the local officer’) then it would be open to challenge through the courts.

Now, this is not an ideal situation. I would like a strong, positive presumption that photography is permitted unless there are very clear and overwhelming local circumstances against it. But for now the Home Secretary’s letter actually provides some useful ammunition for anyone threatened with legal consequences for public photography.

So the counter to a cop who tries to stop us is, “Is this area/activity expressly declared in your Chief Constable’s memo about photography, and please may I see a copy?”

Dear John Bowis OBE,

I have just found out about the plan to include a “three strikes”
directive in the new Telecoms legislation (la quadrature) which is
scheduled for voting TODAY Monday, July 7.

This legislation means that anyone determined three times by their
Internet Service Provider to be downloading copyrighted material would
be disconnected from the Internet.

What worries me most about this legislation is that it is being
appended to an otherwise sound Telecoms legislation that is assumed to
be accepted.

This practice of adding (sneaking in) points to a generally accepted
legislation is a very undemocratic and dangerous practice.

To act against such practices can only enforce people’s trust in
politicians and in the Conservative party and I hope that you will find
the time do to so dear MEP.

Below are just some arguments against the “three strikes” directive in
question.

(boilerplate arguments)