Police examining terrorist raid photographs.....eep

[hyakuhei]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7993304.stm

So terrorists *do* use cameras then, I guess we're screwed.

Can't see this ending well for the rest of us. Though I have to wonder, did these come from a ubiquitous camera phone or point and shoot camera? Or one of those "professional" setups that keep getting us into trouble...

 

[swanseamale47]

From what I have heard in the past theres a better than even chance they asked the terrorists to delete them first. Wayne

 

[POAH]

why are "we" screwed???????????

 

[hyakuhei]

why are "we" screwed???????????

because "we" use cameras on a daily basis and this may lead to ever more restrictive legislation.

 

[POAH]

because "we" use cameras on a daily basis and this may lead to ever more restrictive legislation.

nope don't see it at all. legislation not changed for ages that would actually affect us. just peoples paranoia and the media hyping it up.

 

[Harvey_nikon]

I would imagine terrorists would use point and click cameras.

DSLRs stand out, compacts don't. They'll be less chance of them getting noticed, they'll look more like an everyday tourist and it wouldn't surprise me if they just used a camcorder with photo capability. This way they can get recorded footage of the entire area as well.

 

[hyakuhei]

nope don't see it at all. legislation not changed for ages that would actually affect us. just peoples paranoia and the media hyping it up.

I'm afraid I disagree with you there. The introduction of Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act in February this year is an example of such legislation.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

So terrorists *do* use cameras then, I guess we're screwed.

Innocent until proven guilty, what they police might have on their hands is eleven tourists holiday pictures

I bet no convictions will come fron these arrests they seldom do .... It just fuels collective paranoia which is what the people in charge want

 

[hyakuhei]

I would imagine terrorists would use point and click cameras.

DSLRs stand out, compacts don't. They'll be less chance of them getting noticed, they'll look more like an everyday tourist and it wouldn't surprise me if they just used a camcorder with photo capability. This way they can get recorded footage of the entire area as well.

I think most people here would agree with you Harvey but you don't have to look far on this site to find people who've been hassled by police and rent-a-cops.

To be fair to them, they're in an impossibly complex situation and must aire on the side of caution but that doesn't stop the frustration.

 

[hyakuhei]

Innocent until proven guilty, what they police might have on their hands is eleven tourists holiday pictures

I bet no convictions will come fron these arrests they seldom do .... It just fuels collective paranoia which is what the people in charge want

Good point, One should not assume guilt and you are most likely correct in your assertion that nothing will come of it.

 

[POAH]

I'm afraid I disagree with you there. The introduction of Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act in February this year is an example of such legislation.

I said that would actually affect us. that certainly not going to affect people only going to affect those who don't know the law.

The majority of people don't get any problems with taking photographs

 

[Harvey_nikon]

I think most people here would agree with you Harvey but you don't have to look far on this site to find people who've been hassled by police and rent-a-cops.

To be fair to them, they're in an impossibly complex situation and must aire on the side of caution but that doesn't stop the frustration.

oh I agree we will all get tarred with the same brush.

I am a gamer and we all seem to be tagged as potential mass murderers because of a few fruit loops

 

[Druid]

Thing is, the video of that masked cop attacking Ian Tomlinson, and all those other people taking pictures and videos of the police violence at the G20 demos is obviously something that they'd want to put a stop to. Being caught on camera killing someone or beating the snot out of obviously peaceful middle class hippies seriously undermines their efforts to justify the use of violence and intimidation to discourage people from protesting. The alternative would be to change the way they police demonstrations, of which we're likely to see more as the economic impact of the banking crisis starts to seriously hit us.

They don't actually need to prove a case in court to use section 76 to stop you from taking photos at the time. They can always drop the charges later after you've been prevented from photographing them doing things they don't want to be seen doing.

What it does is give them the excuse ...

 

[sportysnaps]

zzz

 

[Rozzy]

I'll go to hell before I'll be restricted!

 

[AliB]

You already are!

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act makes it illegal to do things like take pics of Police.

Follow that up with the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act and the Coroners Act which both deal very insidiously with the content of images to the point that you can watch a film in the cinema but having a still image from the film on your wall could see you on the Sex Offenders Register for three years. Or how about comic book images being made illegal? Watchmen could become illegal under the new Coroners Act currently at the Lords.

 

[Rozzy]

amazing, but im a human, surely society can **** off????

 

[Steve Smith]

You already are!

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act makes it illegal to do things like take pics of Police.

I think you need to put this into context. i.e. quote the whole of section of the act, not just part of it.

It is not illegal to take a picture of a police officer. It is illegal to take a picture of a police officer which may be of use to a person planning an act of terrorism.

To prove the point of 'use to a person planning an act of terrorism' more evidence would be needed than a picture being taken.

Note that in the recent case of an officer being photographed carrying a top secret document, this part of the act has not been mentioned.



Steve.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Steve Smith WAKE UP!!!

"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".

Which basically means the police can detain ANYONE they suspect of doing the above.

What we need to do is encourage photography as proved in tha case of Ian Tomlinson they cannot arrest us all

 

[Druid]

I think you need to put this into context. i.e. quote the whole of section of the act, not just part of it.

It is not illegal to take a picture of a police officer. It is illegal to take a picture of a police officer which may be of use to a person planning an act of terrorism.

To prove the point of 'use to a person planning an act of terrorism' more evidence would be needed than a picture being taken.

Note that in the recent case of an officer being photographed carrying a top secret document, this part of the act has not been mentioned.



Steve.

Sure but in practice, that means that they can stop photography when it's practical for them to do so, then just let the terrorism prosecution fail or get forgotten about. They don't have to secure a conviction to prevent you taking a photo that they don't want you to take, e.g of them killing some poor guy because he didn't jump to obey their orders, or beating up completely harmless middle-class eco-hippies for example.

The whole point of photography is capturing the moment, if they can stop that, if they can prevent you capturing the precise moment in time where the batons go in when most reasonable people would think they shouldn't or the moment when they attack some guy who subsequently dies because he wasn't obedient enough, then the problem is solved and they don't have to worry about actually proving that you're trying to help terrorists.

The answer to it, as shown by the G20 protests is to saturate the event with photography, so it becomes completely impractical to prevent it.

 

[ekso]

If we were "screwed" they'd ban all mobile phone/cameras
That cant be a bad thing !

 

[Grockle]

I think they should ban camcorders - that's the only specific piece of equipment that has been mentioned as being used by the suspects.

Imagine the outcry if they did that - all the neds would be stuffed.

 

[Slipper-one]

I think you need to put this into context. i.e. quote the whole of section of the act, not just part of it.

It is not illegal to take a picture of a police officer. It is illegal to take a picture of a police officer which may be of use to a person planning an act of terrorism.

To prove the point of 'use to a person planning an act of terrorism' more evidence would be needed than a picture being taken.

Note that in the recent case of an officer being photographed carrying a top secret document, this part of the act has not been mentioned.



Steve.

I think the important bit here is in the wording " which may be of use" that's a very broad remit. Well all photos 'may be of use' and that is determined by the officer at the time.

 

[hyakuhei]

The relevant parts for photography are 76.1.1 and 76.1.2

(1) A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) publishes or communicates any such information.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offense under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

To paraphrase a recent and very well written BBC article - the concern is not for the high level policing of this law, its intentions are well understood. The concern is that junior officers and those without the experience to exercise correct judgement and restraint could use this law in ways it had not been intended.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

The concern is that junior officers and those without the experience to exercise correct judgement and restraint could use this law in ways it had not been intended.

I think that it's always been intended to be that 'flexible'.

 

[bigbigblue]

The wording of section 76 of the act is "likely to be useful" rather than "which may be of use". I would think "likely" requires the a higher level of proof than most people assume.

Also, to prevent you from taking photographs they need to arrest you - which makes for an interesting situation..... If you are suspected of an offence under section 76 of the terrorism act, surely they should arrest you straight away - to tell you that to continue to take photographs would lead to your arrest is ridiculous - either you have committed an offence by taking just 1 picture, or you have not.

I agree that the issue here is the likelihood that section 76 will be poorly applied rather than it being, in itself bad legislation.

I generally do not have any reason (or desire) to take photographs of members of the military, police constables etc as I am mainly a landscape photographer, however I would NOT stop taking photographs of police officers who were themselves potentially committing an offence because of a threat of arrest under section 76.

I suggest everyone who feels they may find themselves in a position of being asked to stop taking photographs familiarise themselves with the law on stop and search. If you are ever in that situation, knowing your rights and assertively (not aggressively) pressing those rights will normally get you the result you want.

Photographers as a group are becoming paranoid and should chill out a bit.

Having said all this, I am concerned about recent abuses of police power and increasingly worried about our slide towards a police state and the erosion of civil liberties - hell, I'm even seriously considering becoming a member of Liberty !

 

[Holden Caulfield]

The wording of section 76 of the act is "likely to be useful" rather than "which may be of use". I would think "likely" requires the a higher level of proof than most people assume.

Also, to prevent you from taking photographs they need to arrest you - which makes for an interesting situation..... If you are suspected of an offence under section 76 of the terrorism act, surely they should arrest you straight away - to tell you that to continue to take photographs would lead to your arrest is ridiculous - either you have committed an offence by taking just 1 picture, or you have not.

I agree that the issue here is the likelihood that section 76 will be poorly applied rather than it being, in itself bad legislation.

I generally do not have any reason (or desire) to take photographs of members of the military, police constables etc as I am mainly a landscape photographer, however I would NOT stop taking photographs of police officers who were themselves potentially committing an offence because of a threat of arrest under section 76.

I suggest everyone who feels they may find themselves in a position of being asked to stop taking photographs familiarise themselves with the law on stop and search. If you are ever in that situation, knowing your rights and assertively (not aggressively) pressing those rights will normally get you the result you want.

Photographers as a group are becoming paranoid and should chill out a bit.

Having said all this, I am concerned about recent abuses of police power and increasingly worried about our slide towards a police state and the erosion of civil liberties - hell, I'm even seriously considering becoming a member of Liberty !

We are in a police state!!

As for becoming paranoid, I think we have good reason to be, as for knowing your rights I think you have been watching to many Dixon of Dock Green episodes.

Basically as we have seen recently with the arrests in the North of England taking pictures of public property can get you detained without charge for up to 28 days, just enough for you to lose your job , and proberbly your home.

Basically the UK has some of the most draconian anti terror laws in the world , yet sucessfull prosicutions remain alarmingly low.

Familerising your self with the law will do you no good, as they will just arrest you anyway , one full cavity search later, you will do exactly as you are told !!

 

[Cheesy]

We are in a police state!!

As for becoming paranoid, I think we have good reason to be, as for knowing your rights I think you have been watching to many Dixon of Dock Green episodes.

Basically as we have seen recently with the arrests in the North of England taking pictures of public property can get you detained without charge for up to 28 days, just enough for you to lose your job , and proberbly your home.

Basically the UK has some of the most draconian anti terror laws in the world , yet sucessfull prosicutions remain alarmingly low.

Familerising your self with the law will do you no good, as they will just arrest you anyway , one full cavity search later, you will do exactly as you are told !!

Relax, I'm sure that the basis for the recent arrests was a little more than people pointing cameras at things. It is a fact that photographers contribute positively to the security of many installations, please speak to the merry men at the end of Rwy 26 at Warton if you have any doubts, the BAE Systems security guys speak highly of them!

Additionally, there is always a positive to every negative, Holden, if you were detained for 28 days, you could work on your spelling!

T'was a joke your Honour.

Cheesy

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Additionally, there is always a positive to every negative, Holden, if you were detained for 28 days, you could work on your spelling!

A sure fire way of knowing you have won the argument, is when people insult you.

Your poverty of intellect goes before you…’cheesy ‘ :thumbsdown:

 

[Cheesy]

A sure fire way of knowing you have won the argument, is when people insult you.

Your poverty of intellect goes before you…’cheesy ‘ :thumbsdown:

I believe that I stated it was a joke, and my argument stands; Photographers contribute positively to the security of many national establishments. This is an established fact. Now get off your high horse and either: A, contribute something other than flights of fancy conspiracy theory to this worthwhile argument, or, B, grow up!

Cheesy

 

[hyakuhei]

har!

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I believe that I stated it was a joke, and my argument stands; Photographers contribute positively to the security of many national establishments. This is an established fact.

Poking fun at spelling mistakes in an attempt to glorify or elevate yourself is not at all funny, no matter how much belief you put behind it.

Whether photographers do contribute to the security of establishments or not, this point is irrelevant to the anti terrorism acts and expected legislations to come.

The restrictions that will most likely be attempted or eventually put into place will be the use of photographic equipment in public places requiring accreditation or some form of license.

Think about that and the possible effect it will have.

Now get off your high horse and either: A, contribute something other than flights of fancy conspiracy theory to this worthwhile argument, or, B, grow up!

Cheesy

Ah yes, conspiracy theory and it's fanciful flights of imaginations running amok. Those silly buggers who dare to question what's put in front of them, just think how stupid and immature they are to take elements from last century's worth of history and compare them with todays events.
The very nerve of it.

 

[Marc]

Ah yes, conspiracy theory and it's fanciful flights of imaginations running amok. Those silly buggers who dare to question what's put in front of them, just think how stupid and immature they are to take elements from last century's worth of history and compare them with todays events.
The very nerve of it.

There is questioning what's put in front of you and then there is presenting the resulting suspicions as fact, which is what some posters appear to be doing.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

There is questioning what's put in front of you and then there is presenting the resulting suspicions as fact, which is what some posters appear to be doing.

The door swings both ways Marc, I've seen folk presenting what they've read in the Sun as fact before now.

That aside, presenting info as fact when you simply cannot is unwise, especially if you wish to be taken seriously and be involved in a worthwhile discussion.

Just as slapping the label of a 'conspiracy theorist' on anyone without fact is as equally ridiculous.

We can merely discuss our opinions, thoughts, expectations and beliefs, but we can do so without insulting each others spelling surely?

EDIT> Just read through the thread again, all I can see is opinions being stated and the quotation of the Anti Terrorism act.

Is there any particular post you feel has been presented as fact?

 

[Marc]

The door swings both ways Marc, I've seen folk presenting what they've read in the Sun as fact before now.

That aside, presenting info as fact when you simply cannot is unwise, especially if you wish to be taken seriously and be involved in a worthwhile discussion.

Just as slapping the label of a 'conspiracy theorist' on anyone without fact is as equally ridiculous.

We can merely discuss our opinions, thoughts, expectations and beliefs, but we can do so without insulting each others spelling surely?

EDIT> Just read through the thread again, all I can see is opinions being stated and the quotation of the Anti Terrorism act.

Is there any particular post you feel has been presented as fact?

Sorry Tomas, should have been a bit clearer. I meant over this subject in general, including the other thread. And I will say again, I wasn't referring to your posts.

I agree that it is equally wrong to present either side of an argument as fact when no actual facts are present. As for the Conspiracy Theorist label, well we obviously have differing ideas as to the meaning of the phrase and I personally don't see it as an insulting term per se, but I am happy to not use the phrase if it causes offence to anyone.

 

[Cheesy]

Poking fun at spelling mistakes in an attempt to glorify or elevate yourself is not at all funny, no matter how much belief you put behind it.

I wasn't trying to elevate myself Tomas and for what its worth, it was funny! Please lighten up. It entertains me greatly that individuals use these forums to elevate themselves on a storm of righteous indignation!

"Whether photographers do contribute to the security of establishments or not, this point is irrelevant to the anti terrorism acts and expected legislations (sic) to come."

I disagree. Anything that can be used to put a positive spin on the law abiding activity of photographers is a bonus . As I have already said, I have spoken to the Security Staff at various airfields who praise the work of the local 'spotters'.

"The restrictions that will most likely be attempted or eventually put into place will be the use of photographic equipment in public places requiring accreditation or some form of license.

Think about that and the possible effect it will have."

In a similar way that firearms, fly fishing, driving, or being able to visit another country require a form of accreditation. I don't see this as a problem; a few forms to fill in, another tier of Civil Servants. The actual end result to me and 99% of others will be slim to nil. I imagine the effect to you in Helsinki will be the square-root of very little.

Finally, Conspiracy Theorist is valid ,"one full cavity search later ... " Pathetic.

If people do not like these restrictions then their elected representatives can be found in London, they are in the big old building, next to the river, across from the big white Ferris wheel.

Cheesy

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I wasn't trying to elevate myself Tomas and for what its worth, it was funny! Please lighten up. It entertains me greatly that individuals use these forums to elevate themselves on a storm of righteous indignation!

Sorry Cheesy, your not doing yourself any favours here, just successfully promoting yourself as extremely arrogant.

"Whether photographers do contribute to the security of establishments or not, this point is irrelevant to the anti terrorism acts and expected legislations (sic) to come."

I disagree. Anything that can be used to put a positive spin on the law abiding activity of photographers is a bonus . As I have already said, I have spoken to the Security Staff at various airfields who praise the work of the local 'spotters'.

Are you referring to air shows by any chance? or are you seriously stating that anyone can take pictures as they please of any military establishments? without prohibition?
There may be miniscule exception but I would love to see you try.

"The restrictions that will most likely be attempted or eventually put into place will be the use of photographic equipment in public places requiring accreditation or some form of license.

Think about that and the possible effect it will have."

In a similar way that firearms, fly fishing, driving, or being able to visit another country require a form of accreditation. I don't see this as a problem; a few forms to fill in, another tier of Civil Servants. The actual end result to me and 99% of others will be slim to nil.

I imagine the effect to you in Helsinki will be the square-root of very little.

Ignorance as well as arrogance. Your a very blissful chap aren't you really. Only joking! ha ha! Don't forget to lighten up now

How does my living in Helsinki make my points or my concerns any less vaild?
I ask you to consider the licensing and accreditation possibility again and this time please consider the more significant uses rather than recreational activities, such as Journalism and Freedom Of Speech.

Finally, Conspiracy Theorist is valid ,"one full cavity search later ... " Pathetic.

So, let's take this 18 year old Pakistani chap who's been dragged in, do you think that he's being treated in a fair and humane manner?

If people do not like these restrictions then their elected representatives can be found in London, they are in the big old building, next to the river, across from the big white Ferris wheel.

Y'know, your right! you are funny!!

 

[Cheesy]

Y'know, your right! you are funny!!

Finally! A result! Made me chuckle as I typed it, thanks for the nod!

Can't comment on your mate from Pakistan I'm afraid.

Wasn't referring to an airshow - please read the thread again carefully, get an adult to help you with the big words (joke!) and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Your concerns are less valid living in Helsinki because it is unlikely that you were involved in the electoral process that brought our beloved leaders to power, the same leaders would have the deciding vote on new legislation. If you did vote then I apologize. Your point of view is valid however but I think we are a way off yet from a police state.

Thanks for the 'lighten up'. For me the gym beckons, but its so difficult after all of those chocolate eggs!

Do we have a 'Freedom of Speech' in the UK? I genuinely don't know and will happily take guidance for those in the know. I know that we have some special measures that can be employed in exceptional circumstances to tie the arm of the press, I'm thinking of the Falklands War, GW I and GW II, etc.

Believe it or not, underneath the banter I'm trying to show an alternative point of view! Please tell me that these threads are hear to encourage discussion, not stifle it. Re-read my posts, I'll admit that a touch of humor runs through my veins but my basic points are merely a counter argument to some posters. Just because my view is different does not make me wrong!

Don't get stressed! It only entertains me!

Cheesy

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Believe it or not, underneath the banter I'm trying to show an alternative point of view! Please tell me that these threads are hear to encourage discussion, not stifle it. Re-read my posts, I'll admit that a touch of humor runs through my veins but my basic points are merely a counter argument to some posters. Just because my view is different does not make me wrong!

Don't get stressed! It only entertains me!

Cheesy

What gives you the impression that I'm stressed?

Because I find your manner slimy and highly arrogant and I'm telling you about it, makes me somehow stressed?

Here's some advice for ya, maybe if you could have a discussion without the smarmy attitude, you may be taken a little more seriously, you may even make some friends!

Enjoy the gym! Don't forget to exercise the component in between your ears now! (Joking ha ha)

 

[Cheesy]

The prosecution rests