Photography Ban in Public Places
-
- Thread starter CarlRadford
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
... and what about people with photographic memory?
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
If this goes through, I predict a massive explosion of pinhole photography in the UK. Anything can be a camera--an Altoids box, beer can, briefcase, pumpkin, delivery truck. If you don't want to be recorded on film, just keep it moving.
I wonder if anyone has thought about forwarding copies of this proposed legislation to the camera,film and memory card manufacturers?
They'll all be affected by it,and no government can afford to ignore a potential large loss of tax revenue.
They'll all be affected by it,and no government can afford to ignore a potential large loss of tax revenue.
There is no legislation, I feel quite annoyed as to how this petition has been worded/publicised and think it is more of a hindrance than a help.
I'm opposed to ludicrous restrictions on taking photos in public places but signing up to something like this doesn't help if it's not based on facts, there is no legislation proposed, nobody is planning any. Exposing the absurd would be more productive and in my previous link referring to the London Eye the publicity itself has done them no favours.
I've no war stories myself I'm afraid but Dave Gorman has an interesting one (unfortunately not a film shooter).
The best practice (in my opinion) is to know your rights and use common courtesy.
First take away the photographs, then take away the photographers.
Like in another country; First burn the books, then burn people.
What is the root reason for the proposed ban?
Like in another country; First burn the books, then burn people.
What is the root reason for the proposed ban?
The answer would propel this thread into the soapbox faster than you could say Dubya.
There is no proposed ban, not least because even A. Blair realizes it couldn't be made to work.
What you have is a load of photographers being as hysterical and over-reactive as the red-top press and (on occasion) the government.
Cheers,
R.
What you have is a load of photographers being as hysterical and over-reactive as the red-top press and (on occasion) the government.
Cheers,
R.
It is truly nice to see this sort goverment idiocy isn't confined to my side of the pond. (I was beginning to think we had beat out all contenders through volume alone. We do, of course, have the best player)
I think in this case the idiocy in question does not stem (directly) from the government. The petition's wording is misleading. There are no current UK government proposals to restrict the rights of photographers.
There is, however, a lot of confusion over what is and is not legally acceptable regarding photography in public places. There is a lot of public hysteria over terrorism and pedophilia, and photographers are bearing a good part of the brunt of this.
I have no regrets at having signed this petition.
There is, however, a lot of confusion over what is and is not legally acceptable regarding photography in public places. There is a lot of public hysteria over terrorism and pedophilia, and photographers are bearing a good part of the brunt of this.
I have no regrets at having signed this petition.
It's the same reason that some people went insane and trashed Dixie Chicks' CDs more than a few years ago...
There is no legislation proposed. At all. None. Nada.
The "petition" is one person's reaction to a knee-jerk sound-bite given by that drunken oaf of a London Mayor's reply to a paedophile witch-hunt instigated by the grimiest of the gutter press. Nothing more.
Other considerations raised here have their valid points, but the idea of legislation to restrict photography is patently ridiculous and no one has ever seen such a suggestion in the real world.
Might as well start a petition against the wearing of day-glow condoms in public...
Cheers, Bob.
The "petition" is one person's reaction to a knee-jerk sound-bite given by that drunken oaf of a London Mayor's reply to a paedophile witch-hunt instigated by the grimiest of the gutter press. Nothing more.
Other considerations raised here have their valid points, but the idea of legislation to restrict photography is patently ridiculous and no one has ever seen such a suggestion in the real world.
Might as well start a petition against the wearing of day-glow condoms in public...
Cheers, Bob.
Even if there is no ban proposed, we should protest against it, just in case... I would say, suppress paranoic ideas before they grow roots. Btw I would be very curious how they would prevent people taking photographs with cellphones. I bet that within 1 or 2 years you won't be able to find one without a built in camera with 2-6 Megapixel.
Maybe they could let photographers do their thing while wearing a big yellow jacket and a large conical hat with a flag and flashing lights all plastered with special biometric ID and official licenses. Plus, photographers would be required to embed a RFID chip inside their scull that feeds their data to the Data Collection Centers which apart from wireless surveillance they carry stereo cameras, ultra sensitive microphones and of course loudspeakers.
Film would be abolished and only specially produced digital cameras would be used that have software that detects "unethical", "suspicious" and unauthorised subjects when the lens focuses at them. The camera then would not fire the shutter, make a loud alarm sound and feed the information to the closest DCC and police officer.
Any infraction would lead to public beatings, prison terms in secret detention centers, amputations, the loss of not only the photography licence but of civil rights and even the death sentence.
To get a license you would have to go through five years of hard and complex bureaucracy, which would collect every possible personal information and run it through every security database known and a simulation software which coupled with deep psychiatric evaluation would determine if you are prone to misuse the trust of the State. After getting the license, you are on strict probation for five years where a police officer follows you around and a special service checks all your daily activities.
I feel safer all ready!
Film would be abolished and only specially produced digital cameras would be used that have software that detects "unethical", "suspicious" and unauthorised subjects when the lens focuses at them. The camera then would not fire the shutter, make a loud alarm sound and feed the information to the closest DCC and police officer.
Any infraction would lead to public beatings, prison terms in secret detention centers, amputations, the loss of not only the photography licence but of civil rights and even the death sentence.
To get a license you would have to go through five years of hard and complex bureaucracy, which would collect every possible personal information and run it through every security database known and a simulation software which coupled with deep psychiatric evaluation would determine if you are prone to misuse the trust of the State. After getting the license, you are on strict probation for five years where a police officer follows you around and a special service checks all your daily activities.
I feel safer all ready!
Whether you have a camera or not, they will just grab you, and you'll be locked up somewhere for a long time. That's all.
There is a technology available that allows locations to broadcast commands to celphones in the area, so that the camera is simply inoperable when the phone is within the specified zone.
This was made public around Deember or so, and the baddest news is that this technology had already been installed in millions of the phones, already in service, before the announcement came.
This is similar to the discovery last year by the EFF that color photocopiers save subtle but FBI-traceable serial number info in the dither pattern of the yellow dots. This bit of steganography had been going on for years without the public's knowledge. Law enforcement can look at a color photocopy and go directly to the manufacturer and the service records of the machine to discover information about who made that copy.
Quite a lot of this stuff goes on. If you're of a forging mind, try scanning a dollar bill in Photoshop some time -- find out what happens. Your attempt will be detected and halted (the US Treasury website can provide you with legally-safe images of currency to use instead).
Feeling safe and happy about all that pr0n you've got stashed on external drive J: now?
What's uncertain is whether these anti-phone fields will be mobile -- say, attached to Jessica Simpson's car -- or whether such un-announced fields will be generally legal -- would your rights be infringed if, while having a romantic anniversary dinner with your mistress, you were unable to make a celphone snap of her simply because Justin Timberlake was lurking in some corner of the same restaurant?
This was made public around Deember or so, and the baddest news is that this technology had already been installed in millions of the phones, already in service, before the announcement came.
This is similar to the discovery last year by the EFF that color photocopiers save subtle but FBI-traceable serial number info in the dither pattern of the yellow dots. This bit of steganography had been going on for years without the public's knowledge. Law enforcement can look at a color photocopy and go directly to the manufacturer and the service records of the machine to discover information about who made that copy.
Quite a lot of this stuff goes on. If you're of a forging mind, try scanning a dollar bill in Photoshop some time -- find out what happens. Your attempt will be detected and halted (the US Treasury website can provide you with legally-safe images of currency to use instead).
Feeling safe and happy about all that pr0n you've got stashed on external drive J: now?
What's uncertain is whether these anti-phone fields will be mobile -- say, attached to Jessica Simpson's car -- or whether such un-announced fields will be generally legal -- would your rights be infringed if, while having a romantic anniversary dinner with your mistress, you were unable to make a celphone snap of her simply because Justin Timberlake was lurking in some corner of the same restaurant?
Does anyone, anywhere have any solid official information about any proposed legislation? I've searched everywhere on the web, contacted my MP and another MP in who is close to the cabinet. It appears that this paranoia is a throwback to an article in one of the red-tops a few years ago(The Daily Express, I think) reporting that the government was to follow France in restricting photography in public places. It was denied then as being unnecessary and unworkable. (I understand the ban in France may be abandoned as unenforcable - anybody got any info on that?)
Most of the problems reported are due to overzealous jobsworths and genuinely concerned parents. To my mind anyone who deliberately photographs children without their parents consent is asking for trouble. Jobsworths can usually be dealt with by asking for their ID, their manager's phone number and suggesting calling the police to sort it out.
I used to be paranoid but 'they' told me I wasn't anymore!
Rob
Most of the problems reported are due to overzealous jobsworths and genuinely concerned parents. To my mind anyone who deliberately photographs children without their parents consent is asking for trouble. Jobsworths can usually be dealt with by asking for their ID, their manager's phone number and suggesting calling the police to sort it out.
I used to be paranoid but 'they' told me I wasn't anymore!
Rob
I think any ban on photography in 'sensitive' areas, anywhere in the world, is pointless.
Have these people not heard of Google Earth?
Have these people not heard of Google Earth?
Here is a video in today's Guardian about a street photographer taking pictures during the Christmas holiday season. It's a little over ten minutes long.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest-photographer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest-photographer
Watching that video gave me chills.
Thanks Jay for posting that video. I can't believe that really happen. I hope that doesn't spread.
Jeff
Jeff
Unless something like this is put in the news paper or television very few people know or care .And if its put on the news reel will the head line read photographer jailed
on suspicious behavior or Police harass innocent photographer?
Mike
on suspicious behavior or Police harass innocent photographer?
Mike
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |