It's a crime to take a picture?

From today, anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence.
That is because of a new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - which has come into force.
It permits the arrest of anyone found “eliciting, publishing or communicating information” relating to members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers, which is “likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.
That means anyone taking a picture of one of those people could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to 10 years, if a link to terrorism is proved.
The law has angered photographers, both professional and amateur, who fear it could exacerbate the harassment they already sometimes face.
On Monday, a group is gathering outside New Scotland Yard for a “mass picture-taking session” in protest.
The event is organised by the National Union of Journalists. It insists the right to take pictures in public places is “a precious freedom” that must be safeguarded.
NUJ organiser John Toner said: “Police officers are in news pictures at all sorts of events - football matches, carnivals, state processions - so the union wants to make it clear that taking their pictures is not the act of a criminal.”
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif The problems we can see arising are with junior officers using the legislation to overcome situations they find uncomfortable http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif

		                 			                      			                     	Neil Turner 

British Press Photographers’ Association

		                 			                     			                         			                            http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif
		                        
		                      			                    [Innocent photographer or terrorist?](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm)

		                 			             			         				 				 			     			 	     [B]'Suspicious circumstances'[/B] 

The British Journal of Photography recently reported an incident involving a photographer in Cleveland who was stopped by a police officer while taking pictures of ships.
He was asked if he was connected to terrorism, which he wasn’t, and told his details would be kept on file.
A Cleveland police spokeswoman told the journal that “in order to verify a person’s actions as being entirely innocent,” anyone in “suspicious circumstances” could be asked to explain themselves.
Photojournalist Marc Vallée is among those angry at the law. He specialises in covering protests and fears for the implications of Section 76.
“Alarm bells really are ringing,” he told the BBC News website.
"I know some of it sounds a bit funny. Train spotters being stopped for taking pictures, that sort of thing, but I’ve spoken to people who’ve been on their own, at night and they’re surrounded by several officers. It can be intimidating.
“It may be that officers are just doing their best with a bad law, but if that’s the case, they need guidance to tell them, ‘Stop harassing photographers.’”
Mr Vallée also pointed out that members of the Royal Family were part of the Armed Forces.
“Are we going to be stopped from photographing them?” he said.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45482000/jpg/_45482140_226_bbc4453.jpg Photographers say they are frequently being stopped and searched

		 		 		 	  	   [B]'Outrageous'[/B] 

The NUJ said some police officers wrongly believed they had the right to delete photographers’ images.
Other critics, meanwhile, fear the new law could inhibit their right to peaceful, democratic protest.
Leo Murray is a spokesman for climate change campaign group Plane Stupid. His members film any direct action they take.
“It’s outrageous,” he told the BBC News website. "It’s yet another in a long line of measures designed to erode people’s civil liberties.
"Being able to film the police has completely changed the way they are able to police our protests. It’s made us much, much safer and the risks of a violent confrontation have almost disappeared.
"If we couldn’t film they could act with impunity, they could just mete out violence with the confidence that nobody would find out.
“There’s absolutely no way we are going to observe this ban. If they try to bring charges against us we will fight them in the courts.”
In a statement, Number 10 said that while there were no legal restrictions on taking pictures in public places, “the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else”.
“So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations,” it said.
Photographers could therefore be asked to “move on” for the safety of themselves or others.
“Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action should be taken,” the statement added.
Junior officers
This discretion, however, is what some feel is the key problem with the law.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45480000/jpg/_45480953_bnpdemo_pa226.jpg Critics fear the new law could stop them photographing legitimate protests

		 		 		 	  	   Neil Turner, vice chairman of the British Press Photographers' Association, said he believed there was no intention among senior ranks of the police to prevent legitimate photography. 

“The problems that we can see arising are with junior officers using the legislation to overcome situations that they find uncomfortable or where they make judgements about photography and don’t know how to apply the legislation on the ground,” he said.
“We firmly expect that there will be inappropriate uses of the act and that someone will end up in front of a judge before there is some clarity and before the purpose of the act is properly defined.”
The Metropolitan Police insisted the law was intended to protect counter-terrorism officers and any prosecution would have to be in the public interest.
“For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists,” it said.
“Taking photographs of police officers would not, except in very exceptional circumstances, be caught by this offence.”

I stalk men in uniform, so I guess it’s off to jail I go!

It’s the State we live in nowadays i’m afraid.

It pisses me off, what if a police officer beats up someone, and then is allowed to delete the video of my camera because I am a 'suspected terrorist

Am I going to be allowed to take pictures of my brother, he’s the army? Was it against the law to take pictures of me seeing for the first time in years last night?’

the problem i have with this is

any would be terrorist or paedo wouldn’t be taking pictures of possible targets with cameras such as the ones myself,bri,flip and guyser use,they cant be concealed…they’re too open

what they’d use is camera phones and compact cameras,something that can be hidden from view

this is stupid and another abuse if power

i agree with certain restrictions,after all,we’re living in dangerous times…but the authorities need to realise where any possible threat is coming from and what equipment they’re likely to be using

[quote=“AbriannaPeto, post: 1093249”]It pisses me off, what if a police officer beats up someone, and then is allowed to delete the video of my camera because I am a 'suspected terrorist

Am I going to be allowed to take pictures of my brother, he’s the army? Was it against the law to take pictures of me seeing for the first time in years last night?’[/quote]
heres some ammo for a debate: what if there had been a law like that during the LA riots? the police would have destroyed the video tape of rodney king’s beating and then charged the cameraman, George Holliday, as a terrorist…:eek

on a personal note, i would not want anyone “specifically” photographing me

On a personal note. I wouldn’t want to photograph an officer. Unless I knew him.

Actually, this is a good point, why would you want to take a picture of a Police Officer?

i’d find that threatening, someone photo’ing me in uniform… considering the fact that i have booked into jail people ranging from 1 day sentences to multiple lifers (no death sent’s yet), i’m sure there are people that would probably like to have my head on a silver platter just for the simple fact that i was the one who booked them in (but not the guy who actually investigated and arrested them… you cant imagine the threats i have received while booking people in…):willy_nilly: i cant imagine the fear that officers with children have…

I think you’re all missing the big picture. The story states IF a link to terrorism is PROVEN. It’s not like the police can just go “oops, you’re a terrorist, lemme delete your photo.” And, honestly, do you think a crooked cop gives a flying poo about this new rule. If a cop is crooked and is gonna beat someone what makes you think they wouldn’t destroy the evidence, too???

exactly…

also just fyi, not all cops are crooked.

I mightb e taking a photo of a car accident, just for fun, and he might happen to be standing in the corner of the pic.

Also, people video tape peaceful protest to keep police from doing anything to the crowds that there not supposed to do.

They can’t just destroy evidence with witnesses around. Unless if they have a firm belief that there is a terrorist connection…

It has been done in Houston because of complaints about private business and churches hiring off duty police officers to direct traffic to help the business.

Which is in direct violation or a city ordinance prohibiting the interference of public commuters in the support of improved traffic flow of private enterprise.

That’s why…So even though I fully support police officers having side jobs, I would think that doing so in the process of breaking a city ordinance sends off the wrong message…

Thoughts?

Since when did taking anyones picture become a crime when you are in plain and open view?

We’re not talking about sneaking a camera into the shower…

How about they take the cameras down at intersections:eek

Ugh Oh… Surveyors might be terrorists too

[quote=“AbriannaPeto, post: 1093246”]From today, anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence.
That is because of a new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - which has come into force.
It permits the arrest of anyone found “eliciting, publishing or communicating information” relating to members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers, which is “likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.
That means anyone taking a picture of one of those people could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to 10 years, if a link to terrorism is proved.
The law has angered photographers, both professional and amateur, who fear it could exacerbate the harassment they already sometimes face.
On Monday, a group is gathering outside New Scotland Yard for a “mass picture-taking session” in protest.
The event is organised by the National Union of Journalists. It insists the right to take pictures in public places is “a precious freedom” that must be safeguarded.
NUJ organiser John Toner said: “Police officers are in news pictures at all sorts of events - football matches, carnivals, state processions - so the union wants to make it clear that taking their pictures is not the act of a criminal.”
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif The problems we can see arising are with junior officers using the legislation to overcome situations they find uncomfortable http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif

                                       Neil Turner 

British Press Photographers’ Association

                                                http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

                      [Innocent photographer or terrorist?](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm)

                                                                                                    [B]'Suspicious circumstances'[/B] 

The British Journal of Photography recently reported an incident involving a photographer in Cleveland who was stopped by a police officer while taking pictures of ships.
He was asked if he was connected to terrorism, which he wasn’t, and told his details would be kept on file.
A Cleveland police spokeswoman told the journal that “in order to verify a person’s actions as being entirely innocent,” anyone in “suspicious circumstances” could be asked to explain themselves.
Photojournalist Marc Vallée is among those angry at the law. He specialises in covering protests and fears for the implications of Section 76.
“Alarm bells really are ringing,” he told the BBC News website.
"I know some of it sounds a bit funny. Train spotters being stopped for taking pictures, that sort of thing, but I’ve spoken to people who’ve been on their own, at night and they’re surrounded by several officers. It can be intimidating.
“It may be that officers are just doing their best with a bad law, but if that’s the case, they need guidance to tell them, ‘Stop harassing photographers.’”
Mr Vallée also pointed out that members of the Royal Family were part of the Armed Forces.
“Are we going to be stopped from photographing them?” he said.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45482000/jpg/_45482140_226_bbc4453.jpg Photographers say they are frequently being stopped and searched

                                     [B]'Outrageous'[/B] 

The NUJ said some police officers wrongly believed they had the right to delete photographers’ images.
Other critics, meanwhile, fear the new law could inhibit their right to peaceful, democratic protest.
Leo Murray is a spokesman for climate change campaign group Plane Stupid. His members film any direct action they take.
“It’s outrageous,” he told the BBC News website. "It’s yet another in a long line of measures designed to erode people’s civil liberties.
"Being able to film the police has completely changed the way they are able to police our protests. It’s made us much, much safer and the risks of a violent confrontation have almost disappeared.
"If we couldn’t film they could act with impunity, they could just mete out violence with the confidence that nobody would find out.
“There’s absolutely no way we are going to observe this ban. If they try to bring charges against us we will fight them in the courts.”
In a statement, Number 10 said that while there were no legal restrictions on taking pictures in public places, “the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else”.
“So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations,” it said.
Photographers could therefore be asked to “move on” for the safety of themselves or others.
“Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action should be taken,” the statement added.
Junior officers
This discretion, however, is what some feel is the key problem with the law.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45480000/jpg/_45480953_bnpdemo_pa226.jpg Critics fear the new law could stop them photographing legitimate protests

                                     Neil Turner, vice chairman of the British Press Photographers' Association, said he believed there was no intention among senior ranks of the police to prevent legitimate photography. 

“The problems that we can see arising are with junior officers using the legislation to overcome situations that they find uncomfortable or where they make judgements about photography and don’t know how to apply the legislation on the ground,” he said.
“We firmly expect that there will be inappropriate uses of the act and that someone will end up in front of a judge before there is some clarity and before the purpose of the act is properly defined.”
The Metropolitan Police insisted the law was intended to protect counter-terrorism officers and any prosecution would have to be in the public interest.
“For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists,” it said.
“Taking photographs of police officers would not, except in very exceptional circumstances, be caught by this offence.”[/quote]Martial Law’s right around the corner. It won’t be long before you won’t even be able to look them in the eye without getting arrested.

Mark my words.

Can you say “police state.”

Sweet Jesu, I hope it isn’t contagious. We’ll see if there are any “wise” guys who would also propose this in the US.

Am I glad the last admnistration is out of office.