Innocent photographer or terrorist? [BBC News]

ciaranhickey

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm

Innocent photographer or terrorist?
By Tom Geoghegan
BBC News Magazine

Misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection are preventing amateur photographers from enjoying their hobby, say campaigners.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm

AnimalRights

I missed this, love the Beebs webby.
Thanks alot.

robinph

The "terrorism" warning poster that they have linked to from that article is pretty worrying if they continue with that line of fear mongering. I think they also have a similar one out about anyone using more than one mobile phone is therfore a terrorist as well.

amcinroy

They wouldn't be so quick to delete our memory cards if we had photographed a terrorist.

Cabaal

that poster is scary, for those who can't be arsed going to the BBC website this is it

Fenster

Nice, really nice.

Valentia

Hmm. Looks like a boards outing to the UK would be a bit risky then?

bernard0368

Is that a 400mm L lens or an RPG.

Stephen

That poster really reminds me of the ww2/cold war era propaganda posters.

LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS!

Zzippy

Valentia wrote: »

Hmm. Looks like a boards outing to the UK would be a bit risky then?

Where;s your sense of adventure?! Board outing to London, take pics of every underground station before snapping the bejaysus out of the MI5 headquarters

Thirdfox

That's why people should buy Nikon... saying that you want to shoot the tower bridge with your CANON will just get you put in prison for a long time...

Borderfox

Zzippy wrote: »

Where;s your sense of adventure?! Board outing to London, take pics of every underground station before snapping the bejaysus out of the MI5 headquarters

No sense of adventure they shoot first and ask questions later Boards.ie post mortem

bovril

Reminds me of the time I was accused of being a terrorist in a subway station in Boston when I was taking a photo. The train driver said it out loud on a speaker thing. I was mortified.

humberklog

I set myself little missions occasionally and the most recent was last week. I was taking pictures (fairly secretly)of visitors leaving Arbour hill prison(something about their sadness of gate catches the eye). Anyhow on the 2nd day the police arrived with a prison officer in tow and fired a loada questions at me. Bit of a search of the bag and then they couldn't understand why they couldn't view the pictures immediately. I use 35mm film.
Their original gambit for questioning me was terrorism! Laughed in their faces! Then one even questioned me about my T-shirt(it had an Israeli Defence Forces logo on it and hebrew writing). I s l o w l y explained what i was doing and they(looking quizzically) asked me not to shoot there again. I did though. Feck'm.

Overdraft

humberklog wrote: »

Then one even questioned me about my T-shirt(it had an Israeli Defence Army logo

That should have been enough to get you arrested.

humberklog

Overdraft wrote: »

That should have been enough to get you arrested.

Steady on. This isn't the thread for that. I'd lose half my wardrobe if that was the case. Gotta support your team. I was telling friends about what happened and they pointed out that they probably meant pro-ira terroists. Not many of them with my wardrobe.
Anyway...they're on terror alert here too. If in a kinda key-stone cop sense. Going back tomorrow and as it's friday i may just wear my yamulka. Oooh they don't like the cold steel up'm!

Fionn

hmm this sort of thing is becoming very common these day - it's a wonder so i wasn't put in the pokey while i was in london i took photos of everything - Dept of Defence, Downing street, the Palace, Parliament Square (where photography is NOT allowed) nearly everything in Whitehall and beyond all with a biggish black camera :eek:



in relation to Phil Smith Yeah he looks like a right shady character huh? http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/site/content.asp?area=425&m=1&type=0&story=91155

turns out that they were 'Special Constables' (civies dressed as cops full of their own importance) under direction of private security staff, there was 5,700 people attending the event and these so called police had nothing better to do than hassle and embarrass a member of the public who was breaking no law - pity he didn't sue them.
His own article is here half way down the page
http://www.idps.org.uk/page82.html

How would we fare out here in Ireland? i bet they wouldn't be found wanting in their zealousness!!

I'm traveling to the States later on in the year and have been reading horror stories from there as well
I did find this article although a bit old would still be relevant for where I'm going http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm at least i'd have a phone number of an attorney!!
apologies for the bigger than usual picture

thought i'd amend the terror poster a bit

Overdraft

Fionn wrote: »

If we ever meet I'll buy you a pint, or eight.

Victor

Zzippy wrote: »

Where;s your sense of adventure?! Board outing to London, take pics of every underground station before snapping the bejaysus out of the MI5 headquarters

Oooops. I'm sure I have the Houses of Parliament, Whitehall and the Labour Party HQ as well.

humberklog wrote: »

I set myself little missions occasionally and the most recent was last week. I was taking pictures (fairly secretly)of visitors leaving Arbour hill prison(something about their sadness of gate catches the eye). Anyhow on the 2nd day the police arrived with a prison officer in tow and fired a loada questions at me. Bit of a search of the bag and then they couldn't understand why they couldn't view the pictures immediately. I use 35mm film. Their original gambit for questioning me was terrorism! Laughed in their faces! Then one even questioned me about my T-shirt(it had an Israeli Defence Forces logo on it and hebrew writing). I s l o w l y explained what i was doing and they(looking quizzically) asked me not to shoot there again. I did though. Feck'm.

Offences Against the State Act - taking pictures, making drawings, having sketches or maps, etc. of garda stations, prisons and military installations is an offence.

As an aside, taking pictures of people going to / coming from prison, whether for incarceration or work, isn't cool. Doesn't Arbour Hill house juveniles? You might get a contempt of court order as well.

Overdraft

Victor wrote: »

As an aside, taking pictures of people going to / coming from prison, whether for incarceration or work, isn't cool. Doesn't Arbour Hill house juveniles? You might get a contempt of court order as well.

I agree, a complete no-no - even if the photos are for private use. They can't/shouldn't, of course, ever be publicly displayed.

City-Exile

Victor wrote: »

Doesn't Arbour Hill house juveniles?

I don't think so, since they house sex offenders.
That shouldn't detract from the validity of the points you make though.

humberklog

City-Exile wrote: »

I don't think so, since they house sex offenders.
That shouldn't detract from the validity of the points you make though.

I really don't intend to take the thread way off topic but a response i think is required.
Indeed sex offenders are incarcerated there. Previous post may well indeed be correct about the morality and legality of taking such pictures. But as a very amatuer snapper I had often noticed the slightly broken look of the visitors leaving and when the sun hits the particular stone that the prison's made from everything looks so bright. It made for an ideal little project. Although i can easily agree with many threads here that'd have a problem with that i also feel that an artist must occassionally push the boundaries to get their desired effect. I'll take it on the chin and put myself in that catagory. Those pictures (like many of my projects)will never see the light of day. My projects have a tendency to be highly personal (whether for the subjects or myself).
Back to OT. I was aware of the slight infringement on taking pictures outside of certain public buildings however this is commonly flouted by the media. The police at the time agreed and did eventually let me on my way. Asking me not to do it again and leaving me with my highly treasured rolls. The pictures by the way capture and convey the personal situation of the subjects beautifully. A very successful project.
Where would art and artists be if the rules were always adhered to?

Fionn

i've been known to take the odd pint


anyway

cheers to the paranoid of the world!

The Black Oil

Read about this on the Beeb yesterday, that poster seems a bit over the top.

ciaranhickey

Apologies for posting more of the same (scaremongering?) but came across this on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2420960125/

"My friend and I were photographing in the town. I spotted a man being detained by this security guard and a policeman, some kind of altercation was going on, i looked through my zoom lens to see what was happening and then moved on.

Moments later as i walked away this goon jumped in front of me and demanded to know what i was doing. i explained that i was taking photos and it was my legal right to do so, he tried to stop me by shoulder charging me, my friend started taking photos of this, he then tried to detain us both. I refused to stand still so he grabbed my jacket and said i was breaking the law. Quickly a woman and a guy wearing BARGAIN MADNESS shirts joined in the melee and forcibly grabbed my friend and held him against his will. We were both informed that street photography was illegal in the town.
Two security guards from the nearby shopping center THE MALL came running over, we were surrounded by six hostile and aggressive security guards. They then said photographing shops was illegal and this was private land. I was angry at being grabbed by this man so i pushed him away, one of the men wearing a BARGAIN MADNESS shirt twisted my arm violently behind my back, i winced in pain and could hardly breathe in agony.
A policewomen was radioed and came over to question the two suspects ( the total detaining us had risen to seven, a large crowd had now gathered)
The detaining guard released me, i asked the policewoman if my friend and i could be taken away from the six guards, she motioned us to a nearby seat and told all the security people to go. She took our details, name, address, date of birth etc. She wanted to check my camera saying it was unlawful to photograph people in public, i told her this was rubbish. we agreed to come with her and we sat in the back of a police car, she radioed back to the station to check our details, i explained to her the law regarding photography and handed over a MOO card, i asked to take her picture and she said no. We were free to go with no charge. I may press charges for unlawful detention and physical assault by the security guards, watch this space.

luckily my friend videoed some of this so it can be used in evidence.

Here it is

www.flickr.com/photos/photodrift/2422740769/ "
End of Flickr Post

rahtkennades

That's a bit rough all right. But I wonder if this happened on some kind of 'mall' street that is actually private land? EG if it is part of a shopping complex, but open street, then it's really private land. I'd expect that you don't have the right to take photos there.

Could be all wrong on that, but I understand that private security have the right to turf you off the property in those circumstances, I imagine it would be the same for photos?

robinph

The pictures that are up on the flickr just seem to be outside on some pedestrianised shopping street so they wouldn't be able to make the claim of it being private property.

Stephen

What a bunch of bastards. I've worked as a security guard in the past and they've no right to do anything but kick you out of whatever their shop is. "detaining" you on a public street? f**k off!

quickg

humberklog wrote: »

I set myself little missions occasionally and the most recent was last week. I was taking pictures (fairly secretly)of visitors leaving Arbour hill prison(something about their sadness of gate catches the eye). Anyhow on the 2nd day the police arrived with a prison officer in tow and fired a loada questions at me. Bit of a search of the bag and then they couldn't understand why they couldn't view the pictures immediately. I use 35mm film.
Their original gambit for questioning me was terrorism! Laughed in their faces! Then one even questioned me about my T-shirt(it had an Israeli Defence Forces logo on it and hebrew writing). I s l o w l y explained what i was doing and they(looking quizzically) asked me not to shoot there again. I did though. Feck'm.

You have a hard neck!! You'll make a great photographer. I would not have had the balls!! Seriously though, you do need to be a bit cheeky sometimes to get the shot.

Eirebear

I was actually asked to delete photographs from my card by police a couple of weeks ago.
I was on my home from doing some of the GFT stuff ive been doing lately and saw a couple of mounted policemen being overtaken by a wee old woman on one of those mobility scooters.

I got my camera out of the bag and took a couple of shots, thinking this is quite a good comedy moment.

I carried on walking and about 5 minutes later a police car pulled up.

"Sorry to bother you sir, but were you taking pictures on Sauchiehall Street about 5 minutes ago?"
"Yeah, i took a couple of shots"
"Did you take shots of the policemen on horses?"
"yep"
"Im going to have to ask you to give me your memory card or roll of film from the camera son"
"Im sorry but no"
"Under terrorism laws it is illegal to take shots of policemen"
"no its not"
"It is if i say so, give me the card"

We went on like this for a good ten minute, before i reluctantly agreed to delete the pictures of the policemen, i couldnt give him the card or delete anything else due to the fact i had just been using it for work, but this guy was really struggling to understand that.

I know i should have stood my ground, and i would have had the law on my side....but i was tired and wanted to get the shots i had taken processed and away so the GFT could use it for press releases.

Reading this thread has made me really angry about it though, i know the pictures werent that important, and as they were rushed probably not even any good....but the principle of the matter still pisses me off

Borderfox

This could really get out of hand, the guy on flickr was very calm. I would have given him a clout with the camera. I have had people tell me to stop taking picture/using flash (even though the camera hadnt got one?)/ I cant be there/this is my patch/I work here and so on, mostly ignored but if pushed then reacted..

Eirebear

Borderfox wrote: »

This could really get out of hand, the guy on flickr was very calm. I would have given him a clout with the camera. I have had people tell me to stop taking picture/using flash (even though the camera hadnt got one?)/ I cant be there/this is my patch/I work here and so on, mostly ignored but if pushed then reacted..

If i didnt have work on my card already that someone else was relying on, i would probably have pushed my luck and stood my ground.

But i had to decide between what was probably an useless photo, and not getting anymore work out of what is becoming quite a regular and enjoyable gig for me.

Borderfox

True

Fionn

you could have used recovery software to fish out the shots and then publish them all over the net to put these overly officious B's in their place.

Have we any sort of code/photographer's rights document available here? I'd like to have something based in law that if you were accosted by the men in black/blue - you could shove in their face!!!

I remember reading an article on Flickr a few years back where a photographer was accosted by a security guard on a public street in San Francisco, the following month they had three hundred people taking photographs all over the street - ahh people power!

quickg

Fionn wrote: »

you could have used recovery software to fish out the shots and then publish them all over the net to put these overly officious B's in their place.

Have we any sort of code/photographer's rights document available here? I'd like to have something based in law that if you were accosted by the men in black/blue - you could shove in their face!!!

I remember reading an article on Flickr a few years back where a photographer was accosted by a security guard on a public street in San Francisco, the following month they had three hundred people taking photographs all over the street - ahh people power!

There's a saying, "Be careful what you wish for, It may just come true!"
With the proliferation of cameras around nowadays whether it be camera phone, compact digicams or DSLR's, everyone thinks they are a photographer. Some think that just because their lens sticks out like some phallic metaphor, they are empowered to shoot anyone and anything they like. Most would not know the difference between an f-stop and a bus stop.

Good photographers not only know their craft and their equipment inside out, but also know when not to take a photograph. If we are not careful, legislation will come and will ban people taking photos and only if you are a photojournalist or have some official accreditation, will you be allowed to take photos.
I am a photographer of long standing and I understand the need for people to "get the shot" but if someone stuck a camera in my face and still persisted after they were asked to stop , whether it be a public or private place, they would have a very expensive repair bill to deal with.
We have to achknowledge other people's sensitivities (paparazzi and celebrity photography aside) and use discression.
All this is unchartered territory and we must be mindful of what we do because we may be inadvertantly the architects of our own downfall.

Thirdfox

*takes off law student hat*
I had heard though (off the internet) that it is illegal to photograph Gardai/police when they are not in active duty.
*puts law student hat back on*

Can anyone confirm or deny this by providing links to the relevant legislation?

quickg

Thirdfox wrote: »

I had heard though (off the internet) that it is illegal to photograph Gardai/police when they are not in active duty.


Can anyone confirm or deny this by providing links to the relevant legislation?

Is there a difference between active duty and inactive duty? I always thought Gardia were "on duty" or "off duty"

Thirdfox

The way I had read it - if the Garda were arresting someone/batonning a protestor etc. you can take a photo, but if they were just walking down the street intentional photography of them isn't allowed.

This being the internet could mean it was just someone talking without any actual legal backing though.

So I just wanted it to be clarified by someone more knowledgable about the matters.

quickg

rahtkennades wrote: »

That's a bit rough all right. But I wonder if this happened on some kind of 'mall' street that is actually private land? EG if it is part of a shopping complex, but open street, then it's really private land. I'd expect that you don't have the right to take photos there.

Could be all wrong on that, but I understand that private security have the right to turf you off the property in those circumstances, I imagine it would be the same for photos?

Quite correct there. Shopping Centres are indeed private land and the landlords officers, i.e. security Guards do have the right to stop you taking photos. Try it in the Blanchardstown Centre and see how far you get!!

sheesh

Yeah but they only can ask you to leave if you refuse they have to call the guards. they cannot lay a finger on you that is assault afaik

Thirdfox

Not legal advice:
But I think if you lose your licence (legal term) to stay on the premises you become a trespasser - and they can "manhandle" you if they want - as long as they don't seriously injure you.

For example a bouncer can throw you out of a pub - they don't have to ring the police.
*Not legal advice!*

Eirebear

Thirdfox wrote: »

Not legal advice:
But I think if you lose your licence (legal term) to stay on the premises you become a trespasser - and they can "manhandle" you if they want - as long as they don't seriously injure you.

For example a bouncer can throw you out of a pub - they don't have to ring the police.
*Not legal advice!*

"reasonable" force i think is the term to describe it.

My question though would be:
If a security guard asks you to stop taking pictures in a shopping centre, where you know he has every right to do so.
Why would you refuse?

Your gonna get more flies with honey and all that.

Stephen

I would absolutely stop if a guard in a shopping centre asked me to as it is private property and they can have whatever rules they like there. But that pr1ck in Middlesbrough in the earlier post on this thread was out on a public street. In that case you'd be well within your rights to tell him to shove it up his hole. I say this as a former security guard - they're not all bastards!

Eirebear

Stephen wrote: »

I would absolutely stop if a guard in a shopping centre asked me to as it is private property and they can have whatever rules they like there. But that pr1ck in Middlesbrough in the earlier post on this thread was out on a public street. In that case you'd be well within your rights to tell him to shove it up his hole. I say this as a former security guard - they're not all bastards!

In public yeah absolutely.

Altough your point is rendered useless with your lies in the last sentence.....:p:D

sheesh

Thirdfox wrote: »

Not legal advice:
But I think if you lose your licence (legal term) to stay on the premises you become a trespasser - and they can "manhandle" you if they want - as long as they don't seriously injure you.

For example a bouncer can throw you out of a pub - they don't have to ring the police.
*Not legal advice!*

From the photographers version of events the security guard didn't ask them to leave, then again that might be something he left out.

Fionn

quickg wrote: »

"Be careful what you wish for, It may just come true!"

How is wishing for clarification of the law and maybe an official code of practice and conduct for photography in Ireland endorsed by the Government and perhaps circulated to all State Agencies a bad thing?

Would you rather it remain a grey area where uninformed people sometimes on a power trip give you the benefit of their interpretation of the law while trampling on your civil liberties and your rights as a citizen of this country.

quickg wrote: »

everyone thinks they are a photographer

I would contend that anyone using a camera to capture an image is probably a photographer

quickg wrote: »

If we are not careful, legislation will come and will ban people taking photos and only if you are a photojournalist or have some official accreditation, will you be allowed to take photos.

What are you suggesting? That we adopt some form of self-censorship based on fear! have a self-imposed ban on street photography, or all outdoor photography just to please the security and the PC crowd. I think there should be some highlighting of the fact that photography in Ireland is such a grey area as far as the law is concerned, there seems to be moves in the UK to address the issue so i guess it might get looked at here in a few years or so.
In New York they’re thinking of issuing permits for certain types of photography, video and cinematography etc., I think that would be ideal here too, then if you were accosted and/or harassed by any of the blue jumper brigade or even the cops, you could produce your permit and that’d be the end of it.

If your in a public place and someone takes a photograph of the street and your in the photograph, theres not a lot (legally) you can do about it. RTE do it all the time you’d often see some story about something in the city or wherever and they’re showing people walking along the street as the commentary is going on, and the people are clearly recognisable in the vid. But they cant complain because they’re in a public area.

In Fareham Shopping Centre in the UK recently, a security guard accused a middle-aged couple of terrorism and banned them for life when they took out a camera to take a picture of their grandchildren. Like huh? terrorism!! whats that about? :rolleyes:
Now how can taking pictures of their grandchildren in the mall pose a "security risk"?

Again it was these ridiculous psuedo-cops and managers etc. with senseless rules and regulations inflating their egos full of their own importance and always playing the “Security” card!! if someone wants to blow up the Shopping Centre in Blanchardstown they aren’t gonna do it with a frickin camera FFS they can stroll around take note of everything and that’s it – make their plans from their observations. Taking a photo of a publicly visible subject does not constitute terrorism, and it doesn’t infringe on a company’s trade secrets either.

It was mentioned someplace that you cant photograph certain state installations, apparently the garda HQ isn’t one of them – they even give instructions how to save copies of their photos!
http://www.garda.ie/vehicles/index.html

I couldn’t find much regarding photography and the law in Ireland, there are some interesting sites for other countries ok that would in some measure be appropriate here too. Below are some of those sites;

http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetail.aspx?prodid=20780

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/lrc99/lrc_99.html

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

http://photojojo.com/content/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/


from 1986 David Letterman v funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8xk360Kzcc

one last thing - photography is NOT a crime!

apologies for the long post - this just annoys me so!

robinph

Thirdfox wrote: »

Not legal advice:
But I think if you lose your licence (legal term) to stay on the premises you become a trespasser - and they can "manhandle" you if they want - as long as they don't seriously injure you.

For example a bouncer can throw you out of a pub - they don't have to ring the police.
*Not legal advice!*

I'm sure that they cannot "manhandle" you off the premises just becasue they decided that they no longer want you there. They can ask you to leave of course, and as long as you then do so there is absolutely no reason for them to lay a finger on you. Bouncers in pubs get away with a bit more due to people being intoxicated and therefore generally uncooperative by default so a bit of gentle pursasion is usually needed as well.

I cannot see how the idea of a Gardai deciding that you have to delete pictures off your memory card could possibly work though. Once you have taken the picture that is then your property, right? So how can there be any reason for them wanting to destroy your property, or potential evidence, just becasue they feel like being akward that day.

Paulw

robinph wrote: »

I cannot see how the idea of a Gardai deciding that you have to delete pictures off your memory card could possibly work though. Once you have taken the picture that is then your property, right? So how can there be any reason for them wanting to destroy your property, or potential evidence, just becasue they feel like being akward that day.

The Gardai cannot make you delete files without a warrant. If the file shows that you committed a crime then the photo itself would be required as evidence. If you didn't commit a crime then it is your personal property which they cannot remove from you.

robinph

Although if they were to actually follow through and arrest you for taking photos, you would need to be sure that they sign something to the effect of exactly what is on the card before they take it off you at the station. Things might mysteriously dissapear otherwise.

quickg

Fionn wrote: »

I would contend that anyone using a camera to capture an image is probably a photographer

Technically, obviously you are quite correct. But then one could argue that someone with a phone with picture taking features is also a photographer.

You are studying law, I see, so I would defer to your expertise and probably you are the best person to make educated opinion. I am glad to see you did some research which will hopefully benefit this discussion.

We, as photographers, have all come across the dad, whether it be at a wedding, communion etc whom because their camera has a big lens push themselves through a group of mums and dads to take a picture because the big lens seems to empower them. This is usually much to the quiet annoyance of the professional paid to do it on the day.

My point was, that it is this behaviour, and it can come from "enthhusiatic amateurs" which may form a basis where legislation is drafted to curb the freedom we enjoy at the moment. We must have some self enforced code of ethics ourselves, otherwise big brother will do it for us.

Another poster earlier mentioned that he took pictures of people leaving prisons. He ended his post by saying something about artists and artists freedom. I found his attitude appalling. He did not seem to ahve any social conscience.

Like I said earlier in the debate, with the proliferation of photo taking devices out there, photography and its place in society has completely changed.

Paulw

I think some people take things too far, especially security guards, who have no idea of the actual law.

You have every right to take a photo of someone in a public place. If that wasn't the case, the many many types of photography would be ended - street photography, photojournalism, etc. Why should we not exercise our rights to take photographs? For fear that big brother might step in? In that case, maybe we should all just hand in our cameras, and give up now.

I think we should stand up for our rights, if challenged. Respect is a two way street. Of course we should respect the wishes of those we photograph, but in the same way, we should also be shown respect.

In this country, the Gardai seem to be fairly well educated, and know that we are not breaking any laws taking photos in public. But, it's clearer that in the UK, private security firms and those Community Support Offices seem to have no clue at all, and end up causing more problems.