Photography in Public Places

[jake]

So it seems that while taking a photograph begins the conflict, the underlying conundrum centers on the demand by police that the person explain what they are doing. The law says (according to this article) a British police officer can ask what someone is doing, but that person cannot be compelled by a police officer to answer that question.

Where the law seems unclear is what then is permitted action? The person may refuse, but how is the police officer then to interpret that refusal?

A normal person with nothing to hide, the officer might say, would be willing to answer the police officer's question. Because the photographer evokes their right to privacy, the police officer feels that he then has probable cause that justifies invading the photographer's privacy. Thus by evoking their right to refuse answering the questions, the photographer steps into a Catch-22 sort of trap. Ironic, yes?

But that is the way that totalitarianism (not to say that Britain is totalitarian, just that this "noose" created by the grayness of the context is a totalitarian element) works. If you answer the officer, you have given up your right to privacy, but if you evoke your right to privacy and refuse to answer the officer, then the officer feels they can invade your privacy legally in a way that may be even more intrusive than what was initially refused.

Either way, you get screwed.

The court needs to clear up the progression of events permitted by rules of privacy against search and seizure by officers. Unfortunately, I am guessing that even the court (unless they are unnaturally visionary) may feel that this gray area is preferable, given current perception that decreasing the risk of terrorism is preferable to ensuring democratic civil rights.

I've never quite understood how fighting terrorism, which seeks at least to diminish democracy, is best pursued by diminishing democracy. But I may be dense.

[LarryD]

Nothing has changed. Tomorrow I will test out this side of the pond.

[sebastian toombs]

a Catch-22 sort of trap.

thats exactly what i was saying to my girlfriend when showing her the video: if you exercise your rights, you may well be deemed suspicious.  if you have the nerve to know your rights and stand up for them (even in the politest possible way, as this fellow did), then you are definitely suspicious.  and if you are flustered or angry enough about them violating your rights, then they have you...  for obstruction, for fleeing and evading, for whatever charge they can make up in the circumstances.

just watching that gave me butterflies in the stomach.

[Tom Hildreth]

...and if you are a photographer and express your gut on this subject, you have telegraphed to the murderous b$$stards that caused all this that they have won...so why the complaints of repression? Size up your subject, align your lens, take the shot and walk away, confident that you met the day's challenge.

Get on with it-and keep a sharp eye out for those who would kill us, exploiting our freedoms.

Oh,
and don't be paranoid. 

[LarryD]

The day went well No cops.

[Tom Hildreth]

I'm wondering in the Guardian photographer's case above, what would the police have done if he had only film cameras with him?

[edthened]

Och if yoo look up "Gherkin Building, London, UK" in Google Maps ye can see re groond floor o' rat building, reception an oll an ye willnae look suspicious an nae polis will bee able tae stop yoo an threaten ye wi arrest by re Special Branch or onywun else f'r rat matter, so ther !!!!!!!

[LarryD]

Found this a minute ago I think it is part of what we are talking about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8414254.stm

[jake]

The police said the CPS had decided there was sufficient evidence to bring terrorism charges, but it was not in the public interest because they would have received the same sentence as for fraud.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If your real goal is to prevent terrorism or to create a deterrent against terrorism, wouldn't bringing terrorism charges against these guys be a bigger deterrent than cell phone fraud? I think the real reason is that the police didn't think a conviction was possible on terrorism charges, but that they were on the cell phone fraud charges. Just doesn't make any sense otherwise.

Besides, this footage was shot on a cell phone, not an actual camera. If this is about terrorism and this event is the basis for the current wrestling match between photographers and policemen, why aren't there reports about people with cell phones being harassed by police? Why does it seem to only involve photographers with (often very obvious) cameras?

At several protests in the last couple years in England, cameras have recorded police acting outside the rules governing police conduct during interactions with the public. Members of the police department suffered professionally when photographic evidence appeared in court and showed their version of events to be false and the protestors' versions to be correct. This has happened several times in NYC as well, with Critical Mass bicyclists and Republican National Convention demonstrators. I'll wager that the police response to cameras is more the result of some photographer's photos or video produced in court that show the police may be "mis-remembering" events than the direct result of any perceived terrorist threat.

Cameras are inconvenient.

Och if yoo look up "Gherkin Building, London, UK" in Google Maps ye can see re groond floor o' rat building, reception an oll an ye willnae look suspicious an nae polis will bee able tae stop yoo an threaten ye wi arrest by re Special Branch or onywun else f'r rat matter, so ther !!!!!!!

Yep. More holes.

[sebastian toombs]

I'm wondering in the Guardian photographer's case above, what would the police have done if he had only film cameras with him?

   hm.  if you were shooting film, perhaps you could convince them to process and print your film for free?  could work out to be cheaper than mail order.