Photography Ban in Public Places

firecracker · Feb 20, 2007

markbb said:
It's a storm in a tea cup. The whole E-petition thing is a joke and rightly ignored by most in government. The one that has attracted the most publicity can't even scrap together 2% of the population to get involved

I can only speak for the case of Japan: Yes, online petition is a joke. It doesn't really affect anything substantial.

People hit streets for real change, not sit in front of a computer and click on the screen.

BarryWilkinson · Feb 20, 2007

I think there should be a ban on children in public, it would solve many problems.

Barry

BarryWilkinson · Feb 20, 2007

Nearly got you Frank

Now a tax on cheesecake would raise a few hackles here!

Barry

Andy K · Feb 20, 2007

firecracker said:
People hit streets for real change, not sit in front of a computer and click on the screen.

Not in modern Britain. The British public are now so dumbed down and complacent that they are more likely to demonstrate over a fixed X-Factor result than they are over something that actually matters.

Roger Hicks · Feb 20, 2007

A little horror story from almost a decade ago:

Polaroid gave me a LOT of outdated Polaroid Sepia, because they knew I loved it and they could hardly sell it past date.

I was down at the sea-front in winter, taking hand-held pics with an MPP: I lived 70 yards from the sea. Three teenage girls drifted by. "Take our photo!"

So I did, and gave them prints, and on the back of a scrap print I wrote my name, address and phone number and said, "If you parents what to know who I am, and why I'm doing this, they can call me." I'd already explained that it was free film and I was just playing with it.

Half an hour later, the police came round: a young policewoman. We showed her a stack of our books -- twenty or thirty published works on general photography, with my name on the cover -- and she sniffed, and said, "Huh. An opportunist photographer."

In other words, there was already a strange paranoia abroad in the UK, and ordinary, decent, normal human behaviour counted for nothing, including an attempt to set the parents' minds at rest. One phone call from any of the girls' parents would have cleared up the whole matter in seconds, and I have to say that in their situation, I'd probably have called to check what the girls were saying. But no. CALL THE POLICE.

People get the government, the police and the laws that they ask for.

Cheers,

R.

Jean Noire · Feb 20, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
A little horror story from almost a decade ago:

People get the government, the police and the laws that they ask for.

Cheers,

R.

I would think that this is like a fly to the trout, O.K I'll rise to it.
U.K Government has, for a few years, been elected on a minority of the population on a first past the post system and for a term of up to five years inn office.
So, it seems that what we get is a Government that some ask for and laws we hardly know about until it's too late. Sad, really.
Regards
John

Roger Hicks · Feb 20, 2007

jonjonho said:
...what we get is a Government that some ask for and laws we hardly know about until it's too late. Sad, really.
Regards
John

Dear John,

I'd not argue with that, but what I was suggesting is that the government, police and laws we get are consequences of the loony paranoid zeitgeist, i.e, that all are a symptom of the same thing, driven to a large extent by the red-top gutter press.

Cheers,

R.

Dave Miller · Feb 20, 2007

BarryWilkinson said:
Nearly got you Frank

Now a tax on cheesecake would raise a few hackles here!

Barry

Wow, that gave me a fright.:confused: Ban photography if you want, but hands off cheesecake.

Andy K · Feb 20, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Dear John,

I'd not argue with that, but what I was suggesting is that the government, police and laws we get are consequences of the loony paranoid zeitgeist, i.e, that all are a symptom of the same thing, driven to a large extent by the red-top gutter press.

Cheers,

R.

Not just the red tops. The majority of the British press are guilty of fuelling the hysteria. Even the TV news companies are guilty.

During the recent bird flu outbreak in Norfolk the BBC sent one of their golden girl reporters (Natashia Krapsky I think it was) to interview local people. She was most put out when no-one she spoke to showed any signs of panic, and was resorting to ever more loaded questions to try for a reaction.

firecracker · Feb 20, 2007

Maybe this helps us uderstand the current trend on the security/surveillance issues among the most technologically advanced countries:

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you focus on this as a human rights lawyer?

MAUREEN WEBB: Well, I think its one of the less-examined aspects of the war on terror, and Im co-chair for a Canadian coalition of civil society groups called the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. And in 2004, we brought some of the major NGOs working on these issues from around the world: ACLU in the United States, Statewatch in Europe, Focus on the Global South in Asia. And we wanted to look for common patterns that were happening in our countries and see if there was any way that we could collaborate.

And what we identified was that there were all of these surveillance initiatives that were being introduced, many of them through international forums like the G8, and that all of our governments seem to be working towards this common goal, but that these initiatives tended to be reported very disparately in the media, and nobody had really connected the dots. We thought it was important, because its really one of the more insidious aspects of the war on terror. It will have long-term effects on our democratic societies and democratic movements around the world.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/1523257

I think the case in UK as well as other concerned nations are set on the agenda of mass-profiling. In this context, the 'photography ban' seems to provide an unconstitutional limit to us, rather than a privilege. And I wonder who wants to give away their rights to the authorities and certain private business sectors that their governments associate with.

These businesses are going after our personal information because whether it's good infromation or not, it makes profits as they create our profiles, and that could be totally off based, incorrent, inaccurate of our indentities and presentations.

firecracker · Feb 20, 2007

Andy K said:
Not in modern Britain. The British public are now so dumbed down and complacent that they are more likely to demonstrate over a fixed X-Factor result than they are over something that actually matters.

I know you guys can fill the city streets in London when you really do.

firecracker · Feb 20, 2007

catem said:
Adding more (then I've said enough!)..... I don't do much 'documentary' photography as such, but I am often out and about with my camera in London, and I have never, ever experienced any problem or paranoia. Most often people, if they notice me at all, are interested in my camera and more interested that their children - if they are around mine - are getting in my way, rather than that their children may be included. Sometimes I find myself worrying about other people worrying what I'm doing but can honestly say I've never had any evidence of this, (so paranoia - photographers' paranoia that is - must be catching!)

But once our profiles (or the 'photographers IDs') are created, that will be it, I guess. So, what if your ID says you're not qualified to have a permit to photograph in public? Do you want to live like that for the rest of your life? How can young people practice journalism which is a profession open to anyone?

And if you violate what is said on your ID, what consequences do you have to face?

The bottom line is, this is all non-sense, and we just have to be keen on what might happen to us if we didn't say we don't want such a ban. This is not just for UK, but for the rest of the world as well.

Andy K · Feb 20, 2007

catem said:
S
Adding more (then I've said enough!)..... I don't do much 'documentary' photography as such, but I am often out and about with my camera in London, and I have never, ever experienced any problem or paranoia. Most often people, if they notice me at all, are interested in my camera and more interested that their children - if they are around mine - are getting in my way, rather than that their children may be included. Sometimes I find myself worrying about other people worrying what I'm doing but can honestly say I've never had any evidence of this, (so paranoia - photographers' paranoia that is - must be catching!)

I take it you are female Cate. If you were male you would without doubt have come across such paranoia by now.

arigram · Feb 20, 2007

I guess westerners are tired of their rights and freedoms and throwing them out of the window like tennis balls. Too bad that democracy is wasted, it was such a good idea a couple thousand years and half ago...

catem · Feb 20, 2007

Andy K said:
I take it you are female Cate. If you were male you would without doubt have come across such paranoia by now.

Yes, this undoubtedly makes it easier, although logically it shouldn't as women have been known to act in partnership with men to procure photographs of children (if that's what we're talking about). I accept if you're a 6ft 2 male, it's likely to be a bit different.

But there's more to it than that. It's also to do with the way you relate to people around you, especially whether you communicate or not, and even the body language you use (consciously or not).

Yes, there are cases of complete overreaction by the powers that be. But I'm not convinced it's happening nearly as much as you'd think. I also happen to believe that 'situations' could often - if not always - have been avoided.

And Firecracker - As for ID cards, - I've never said I support the idea, only that they could be useful in certain circumstances - certainly if photographers persist in refusing to speak to members of the public. I think it would need to be thought about carefully though, and I'm not at all sure the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages. I'm certainly not going get into defending the idea of having them because I have never said I believe it should happen. And as far as I know there are NO plans to make ID cards a requirement.

Photographers deserve to be heard, and these issues need to be discussed. I'm all for that. I'm just getting tired of those who don't see it as a two-way process and talk endlessly about their rights but have nothing to say about responsibilities.

p.s. won't be able to pick up on any more points as am going away for the rest of half term

firecracker · Feb 20, 2007

catem said:
And Firecracker - As for ID cards, - I've never said I support the idea, only that they could be useful in certain circumstances - certainly if photographers persist in refusing to speak to members of the public. I think it would need to be thought about carefully though, and I'm not at all sure the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages. I'm certainly not going get into defending the idea of having them because I have never said I believe it should happen. And as far as I know there are NO plans to make ID cards a requirement.

I see your point of view, but the problem is the ongoing process of the profiling with so called 'predictive analysis' according to the Canadian human rights lawyer. The predictive analysis is, you know, something that might or might not happen, so it cannot be a truthful representation of individuals. So, for example who might have a better chance of going to jail for child porn between the guy whose name is Pete Townsend (I have nothing against him by the way) and Mr.nobody who checks amazon for purchasing numerous photo books on young teens? I think the answer is probably both even though neither are engaged in anything illegal. That's what the predictive analysis sounds like, to me.

Now this might not be the case of UK right now, but for the G8 countries, it is something to be expected.

And the response to the content of the AP article more precisely, I find that the photographers whether amateurs or pros have some sort of responsibilities to communicate with their photo subjects, and I totally agree with you on that. In fact, I personally don't have problems taking photos in public (the U.S., Japan, a dozen of European countries), but the current mass-profiling is probably being done in a place I will never know. That's why there are so called 'extraordinary renditons' conducted by the U.S. authorities, and they incorporate with their allied nations. It doesn't matter what charges are. You could be held in a jail with no charge forever. Where are their rights? They are not criminals at all, but this massive and random illegal profiling makes them criminals. And this is where we are all heading to if we don't stop it.

I recommend you watch the video clips from Democracy Now that I put the links to because they really cover this subject well. And I belive democracy is a choice and so possible but only when all citizens in a given society are well informed. I'm not paranoid. I'm just telling you what's going on in the world today.

firecracker · Feb 20, 2007

arigram said:
I guess westerners are tired of their rights and freedoms and throwing them out of the window like tennis balls. Too bad that democracy is wasted, it was such a good idea a couple thousand years and half ago...

Democracy has always been the process of fighting and fighting back, but some people just don't get it.

And to implement democracy in new soil is much much harder, but again some people just don't get it at all.

catem · Feb 21, 2007

I think this is one of those threads - common on apug - where in fact people pretty much agree with each other.

To get back to the original point of this thread - I don't think this particular petition has been handled very well - this has a lot to do with the whole e-petition system here - and it would appear in the particular example given the photographers in question could have handled the situation differently.

Gotta go.

firecracker · Feb 21, 2007

catem said:
To get back to the original point of this thread - I don't think this particular petition has been handled very well - this has a lot to do with the whole e-petition system here - and it would appear in the particular example given the photographers in question could have handled the situation differently.

I was hoping that this would open up a big discussion, but it didn't, much like many other threads in general. In a sense this is potentially more serious as a topic than the ones concerning the problems of Xray scans at the airports.

Sirius Glass · Feb 21, 2007

firecracker said:
In a sense this is potentially more serious as a topic than the ones concerning the problems of Xray scans at the airports.

Not if it is my film and I am not travelling in the UK.

pentaxuser · Feb 21, 2007

firecracker said:
I was hoping that this would open up a big discussion, but it didn't, much like many other threads in general. In a sense this is potentially more serious as a topic than the ones concerning the problems of Xray scans at the airports.

In terms of attacks on freedoms that we took for granted even a few years ago, you are quite right. The insidious and chilling aspect is that those who wish to remove our freedoms rely on the fact that we can be fooled into quickly forgetting how much things have changed and we even find oursleves providing a rationale as to why these changes are "justified". The analogy with surreptitiously boiling the frog sitting reasonably comfortably in the ever warmer water in the pan springs to mind. By the time he realises what is happening, it is too late.

The rationale runs: The authorities/ government must have good reason for doing what they are doing, otherwise they wouldn't do it. So it is unreasonable to hold them to account and ask that they justify such actions fully, providing cause and effect evidence and proof that the response is proportionate to the real threat.

I could go on but the whole spectrum of views has been aired before on this site and unfortunately caused more problems than it has solved. I suspect that is why it has generated less of a discussion that you had hoped for.

pentaxuser

Tom Stanworth · Feb 22, 2007

I would bet a public place would be city centres, public or prominent buldings/landmarks and just about anywhere in London you care to mention.......this is not a joke, police are already busy harassing photographers under the prevention of terrorism act 2000. I know, they harassed me because I was 'obviously' a photographer but ignored the literally hundreds of 'normal touristy' looking people. Terrorists generally try to make themselves look as prominent as possible as a double bluff. Zawahiri wrote the 'terorist photographers handbook' stating, "Thou shalt capture the images of the infidel structures using a tripod (the bigger the better), sheet film and acutance developers. Mujaheddin brothers must shun the evils of digital cameras and the likeness of tourists for the boosoms of 72 virgins await only the brazen and devout devotees of Berleback tripods, Ebony Cameras and the Pentax Spot meter". The Govt really are a bunch of ignorant pr*ts, the level of intiative demonstrated by many beet coppers being little better it would seem. The same idiocy denies many parents the chance to look back on videos of their children in the school play (because everyone knows children need protecting from vilanous paedaphiles getting off on children dressed up as 'Noah and the animals'. People get the politicians they deserve and so the solution lies in our hands.

I recall a similar issue with the NY police not too long ago that claimed the NYC were in breach of the law.

nc5p · Feb 22, 2007

I thought after the subway bombing that the authorities obtained much valuable evidence from all the cell phone and point-n-shoot cameras people had. This obviously is not enough to counteract the stupidity we see more and more in our two countries.

Roger Hicks · Feb 23, 2007

This has been a recurring theme in my AP column. Kast week's (issue of Feb 24) suggested the photographic equivalent of the 'Mass Trespass' movement by ramblers that established the 'Right to Roam' now enshrined in English law, and a while back I suggested using national lottery money to fund a weekly photo competition for street photography with monthly and annual prizes. I suggested the latter precisely because photographers are an infinitely more valuable resource than CCTV cameras: as an earlier post said, the investigating authorities apparently DID get useful information from members of the public who were carrying cameras and camera 'phones.

If anyone's interested, a collection of the first couple of years' columns is available from www.magepublishing.co.uk. I'm not totally happy with it -- there are several typos (because I never saw proofs) and the repro quality of picture insert is awful -- but if you like to think about why and how we take pictures, or suffer from low blood pressure, you may find it of interest at only £11.99.

Cheers,

R.

eagleowl · Feb 23, 2007

I've just signed!
Ultimately,I want to make a legitimate living as a photographer(either freelance or directly employed).
For that,a qualification will be at the very least extremely useful(possibly even essential).
For that,I'll need more practice.
There are only so many good photos I can take in my garden-assuming THAT doesn't qualify as a public place!

Photography Ban in Public Places

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency