Is Photography Illegal now?

[Harsh]

according to this report it is...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm

yet again i'm stunned at how laws like this can be passed without thought for the consequences.

can you imagine how many potential abuses of this law there could be?

[Dizeee]

..."if a link to terrorism is proved"....

It's going to be so rare....

[Harsh]

it should be rare, however how are they going to prove a link at that specific point in time?

So, they will have to err on the side of caution and check everything, when and if they feel like it?
it's fine if you take a pic, but what if i do?

it may be rare, but surely it simply comes under existing anti terrorism law, why the need to be specific if not to use it for more than terrorism?

[TigerTwo]

This actually seems like a codification of a growing trend of suspicion towards people with cameras in general. I read a blog post more than a year ago on a photography blog complaining about how if you have a camera, you are viewed with mistrust and made to feel like an outcast. You are no longer assumed to be simply taking photographs - you are assumed to be a paedophile, a terrorist or a stalker.

This isn't something explicit - it has become implicit in our society because of the fear that has been instilled in us by the media, who have bred this level of suspicion. There have always been paedophiles, terrorists and stalkers. The only difference now is that we assume every person we come across is one unless they can prove otherwise.

Frankly, I think it is a sad commentary of our society that it has had to get to this stage. Trust is a far more pleasant state to exist within. Mistrust and suspicion is divisive, insidious and destructive.

[Harsh]

errrm wot she said.

yeah :p

i'd like to take phots when i like, it's not as if they hide their faces away is it?

[Dizeee]

it should be rare, however how are they going to prove a link at that specific point in time?

So, they will have to err on the side of caution and check everything, when and if they feel like it?
it's fine if you take a pic, but what if i do?

it may be rare, but surely it simply comes under existing anti terrorism law, why the need to be specific if not to use it for more than terrorism?


lol

What it means is that if your you... by the sie of the road, taking a pic of a copper in uniform or in a car, you will at worst be asked what your doing.

The wording means that any pic taken would need to be linked with a known Terrorist activity. That just aint going to happen.

However, it gives us (the hands behind back lot) a weapon, if you think about it. Last week I dealt first hand with a demo at Euston involving around 200 demonstrators. All of them as per usual, in your face with a camera. With legislation like that it at least gives us "something" to work with.

Its a terribly long story :)

[Harsh]

And an interesting point,

we tend to only see one side of the coin. the side that affects us.

Indeed i accept that the police have a job to do and tend to do well with the powers they have.

sometimes they can be scuppered by needing to be PC (no pun intended!)
and of course the public at large dont see what happens on the beat.

In which case, greater transparency is needed to let the public know why these ammendments to the law are made.

[Redex R]

I wonder how many Japanese tourists they could detain on mass :confused: seriously though my brother was detained at some length when on holiday in what was previously Yugoslavia before all the conflicts had started , as a tourist he wanted to explore and had a camera with him , unfortunately for him he ended up on the doorstep of a miliatry base where he was immediately apprehended and taken for questioning and the old 35mm film was confiscated , fair play to them though surely its better to be sure about any potential threats to their state.