Not really It appears the Home Office has not backed it... According to AP it was "distancing itself" from the guidance....
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
The Met Police have not changed anything, they are just making clear what the law says and what we all knew. It is not a case of "hope the other police forces follow", they simply have to comply with what is the law, bottom line.
> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
There's most likely nothing new there at all.
As with many such situations, the problem often lies in trying to convince the police personnel actually on the scene that they're exceeding their powers, or are acting contrary to stated and agreed policy. This doesn't simply apply to photography either. If the police feel themselves under pressure in a situation they're unfamiliar with, then even quoting the relevant material taken from their own website may be of little avail. But may even prove counterproductive. In an ideal world they'd maybe be better trained to deal with these situations, but unfortunately the fares to the ideal world are rather expensive.
MC wrote: > "Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <real-address-in-...@lineone.net> wrote in message > news:3kac5519t5rce79hb0h9rum5a3cq0rmn0n@4ax.com... >> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
> The Met Police have not changed anything, they are just making clear what > the law says and what we all knew. It is not a case of "hope the other > police forces follow", they simply have to comply with what is the law, > bottom line.
> MC
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that all police forces (and individual officers) are required to uphold and comply with the law it is unrealistic to expect each and every officer to know all of the intricacies of all the laws that are currently in force. Indeed it would be a Herculean task seeing as this government has created 1 new offence for every day it has been in power!
The subject of photography may be of importance to us - because we're photographers - but it is of far less import when considered against murder, rape and other less-severe crimes. I would rather the police know their way around those bits of legislation than a few odd-ball sections of the Terrorism Act 2000.
So far I have not had any problems when undertaking street photography despite including several police officers in my pictures - plus government buildings, military installations/personnel and transport infrastructure.
Sorry, MC, if this sounds like I'm having a dig at you personally - I'm not, but I needed to sound off somewhere and it was your comment that got the juices flowing ;-)
>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
>There's most likely nothing new there at all.
>As with many such situations, the problem often lies in trying to convince >the police personnel actually on the scene that they're exceeding their powers, >or are acting contrary to stated and agreed policy. This doesn't simply apply >to photography either. If the police feel themselves under pressure in a situation >they're unfamiliar with, then even quoting the relevant material taken from their >own website may be of little avail. But may even prove counterproductive. >In an ideal world they'd maybe be better trained to deal with these >situations, but unfortunately the fares to the ideal world are rather >expensive.
Amen!
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
> MC wrote: >> "Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <real-address-in-...@lineone.net> wrote in >> message news:3kac5519t5rce79hb0h9rum5a3cq0rmn0n@4ax.com... >>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
>> The Met Police have not changed anything, they are just making clear what >> the law says and what we all knew. It is not a case of "hope the other >> police forces follow", they simply have to comply with what is the law, >> bottom line.
> Whilst I agree with the sentiment that all police forces (and individual > officers) are required to uphold and comply with the law it is unrealistic > to expect each and every officer to know all of the intricacies of all the > laws that are currently in force. Indeed it would be a Herculean task > seeing as this government has created 1 new offence for every day it has > been in power!
I agree, but the OPs post inferred that the Met has it's own, independent interpretation of the law when in fact the law is the law and all police forces must adhere to it.
> The subject of photography may be of importance to us - because we're > photographers - but it is of far less import when considered against > murder, rape and other less-severe crimes. I would rather the police know > their way around those bits of legislation than a few odd-ball sections of > the Terrorism Act 2000.
Again, I agree. However, not knowing the law is no excuse for making it up as you go along. All police officers should know exactly what the law is before confronting any member of the public who are engaging in an activity to which that law refers. If they are not clear on the law at the time they should leave well alone until they are educated of the correct procedure under that particular law, by a senior officer on site or back at headquaters.
> So far I have not had any problems when undertaking street photography > despite including several police officers in my pictures - plus government > buildings, military installations/personnel and transport infrastructure.
Me neither come to that. They just dare. :-)
> Sorry, MC, if this sounds like I'm having a dig at you personally - I'm > not, but I needed to sound off somewhere and it was your comment that got > the juices flowing ;-)
"Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism."
leaves a lot to interpretation. You take a close up photo of some neat detail of the London Eye and it could be artistic or part of recconaisance on where to place a bomb.
There are endless possibilities of what strikes a persons fancy as a photographic subject and what might be scouting.
Like all such 'policies' it is really meant to water down the impact of badly designed laws without removing the law from the books. A Jack in the Box.
> "Officers have the power to view digital images > contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried > by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism > Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine > whether the images contained in the camera or mobile > telephone are of a kind, which could be used in > connection with terrorism."
> leaves a lot to interpretation. You take a close up photo of some neat > detail of the London Eye and it could be artistic or part of recconaisance > on where to place a bomb.
> There are endless possibilities of what strikes a persons fancy as a > photographic subject and what might be scouting.
Friends of mine have had that problem the police asking so why are you taking a picture of the 4 security cameras. he was an art student and started describing the way the barbed wire created a frame for the camera. that enclosed the clouds. The policeman believed him, I doubt a terrorist could come up with a long winded description of such things. I do wonder why a terrorist would bother taking such photos making themselves conspicuous like that.
whisky-dave wrote: > "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message > news:P6GdnYvPyaer4MvXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote: >>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
>> "Officers have the power to view digital images >> contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried >> by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism >> Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine >> whether the images contained in the camera or mobile >> telephone are of a kind, which could be used in >> connection with terrorism."
>> leaves a lot to interpretation. You take a close up photo of some neat >> detail of the London Eye and it could be artistic or part of recconaisance >> on where to place a bomb.
>> There are endless possibilities of what strikes a persons fancy as a >> photographic subject and what might be scouting.
> Friends of mine have had that problem the police asking so why are you > taking a picture of the 4 security cameras. he was an art student and > started > describing the way the barbed wire created a frame for the camera. that > enclosed the clouds. The policeman believed him, I doubt a terrorist could > come up with a long winded description of such things. > I do wonder why a terrorist would bother taking such photos making > themselves conspicuous like that.
These days there is so much photography on the web, in magazines, travel books, etc., etc., etc. that a terrorist would only need to do research then eyeball recce. without a camera.
> whisky-dave wrote: >> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message >> news:P6GdnYvPyaer4MvXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote: >>>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
>>> "Officers have the power to view digital images >>> contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried >>> by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism >>> Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine >>> whether the images contained in the camera or mobile >>> telephone are of a kind, which could be used in >>> connection with terrorism."
>>> leaves a lot to interpretation. You take a close up photo of some neat >>> detail of the London Eye and it could be artistic or part of >>> recconaisance on where to place a bomb.
>>> There are endless possibilities of what strikes a persons fancy as a >>> photographic subject and what might be scouting.
>> Friends of mine have had that problem the police asking so why are you >> taking a picture of the 4 security cameras. he was an art student and started >> describing the way the barbed wire created a frame for the camera. that >> enclosed the clouds. The policeman believed him, I doubt a terrorist could >> come up with a long winded description of such things. >> I do wonder why a terrorist would bother taking such photos making >> themselves conspicuous like that.
> These days there is so much photography on the web, in magazines, > travel books, etc., etc., etc. that a terrorist would only need to do > research then eyeball recce. without a camera.
>> On Jul 9, 1:40 pm, Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address- >> in-...@lineone.net> wrote: >>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
If a PCSO is involved you can be rest assured of a Mickey Mouse situation. PCSOs are just jumped up park keepers. While on the subject, are there still such things as a park keepers these days? :o)
It only talks about terrorism and does not address other red rags to their bull. e.g. the "crime" of photographing children. This can not only get you arrested (and hence ineligible for US visa waiver) but also an entry on the CRB intel database as a possible paedophile (and hence ineligible for certain kinds of work), even if you have a totally innocent explanation.
> On 9 July, 19:40, Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address- > in-...@lineone.net> wrote: >> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
> It only talks about terrorism and does not address other red rags to > their bull. e.g. the "crime" of photographing children. This can not > only get you arrested (and hence ineligible for US visa waiver) but > also an entry on the CRB intel database as a possible paedophile (and > hence ineligible for certain kinds of work), even if you have a > totally innocent explanation.
There is no such thing as the crime of photographing children and in a public place you have every right to if you so wish (as long as you don't mind dealing with disgruntled parents and the odd mis-informed PCSO etc...). So, with all due respect, you are basically talking a load of crap
> > On 9 July, 19:40, Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address- > > in-...@lineone.net> wrote: > >> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
> > It only talks about terrorism and does not address other red rags to > > their bull. e.g. the "crime" of photographing children. This can not > > only get you arrested (and hence ineligible for US visa waiver) but > > also an entry on the CRB intel database as a possible paedophile (and > > hence ineligible for certain kinds of work), even if you have a > > totally innocent explanation.
> There is no such thing as the crime of photographing children and in a > public place you have every right to if you so wish (as long as you don't > mind dealing with disgruntled parents and the odd mis-informed PCSO etc...). > So, with all due respect, you are basically talking a load of crap
> MC
Thank you for your respect. Yes, you know and I know that there is no such crime, which is why I put the word in quotes. But there is an urban myth that there is, and IME it's hard to convince PCs/PCSOs/ disgruntled parents otherwise. This is why it would have been nice to have it covered by the Met's guidelines.
And in case anyone wonders, I don't normally have any interest in photographing children, or adults for that matter, without asking or being asked, but like PCSOs, sometimes they get in the frame.
Savageduck wrote: > On 2009-07-10 13:12:21 -0700, Alan Browne > <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>> whisky-dave wrote: >>> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message >>> news:P6GdnYvPyaer4MvXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote: >>>>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
>>>> "Officers have the power to view digital images >>>> contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried >>>> by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism >>>> Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine >>>> whether the images contained in the camera or mobile >>>> telephone are of a kind, which could be used in >>>> connection with terrorism."
>>>> leaves a lot to interpretation. You take a close up photo of some >>>> neat detail of the London Eye and it could be artistic or part of >>>> recconaisance on where to place a bomb.
>>>> There are endless possibilities of what strikes a persons fancy as a >>>> photographic subject and what might be scouting.
>>> Friends of mine have had that problem the police asking so why are you >>> taking a picture of the 4 security cameras. he was an art student and >>> started >>> describing the way the barbed wire created a frame for the camera. that >>> enclosed the clouds. The policeman believed him, I doubt a terrorist >>> could >>> come up with a long winded description of such things. >>> I do wonder why a terrorist would bother taking such photos making >>> themselves conspicuous like that.
>> These days there is so much photography on the web, in magazines, >> travel books, etc., etc., etc. that a terrorist would only need to do >> research then eyeball recce. without a camera.
> Google Earth is the London terrorist's friend.
GE is 2D so it can be misleading wrt terrain, obstacles and so on. In Google Maps there is the "terrain" view with elevation, but it is not fine enough for tactical planning.
>>> On 9 July, 19:40, Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address- >>> in-...@lineone.net> wrote: >>>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
>>> It only talks about terrorism and does not address other red rags to >>> their bull. e.g. the "crime" of photographing children. This can not >>> only get you arrested (and hence ineligible for US visa waiver) but >>> also an entry on the CRB intel database as a possible paedophile >>> (and hence ineligible for certain kinds of work), even if you have a >>> totally innocent explanation.
>> There is no such thing as the crime of photographing children and in >> a public place you have every right to if you so wish (as long as >> you don't mind dealing with disgruntled parents and the odd >> mis-informed PCSO etc...). So, with all due respect, you are >> basically talking a load of crap
>> MC
> Thank you for your respect. Yes, you know and I know that there is no > such crime, which is why I put the word in quotes. But there is an > urban myth that there is, and IME it's hard to convince PCs/PCSOs/ > disgruntled parents otherwise. This is why it would have been nice to > have it covered by the Met's guidelines.
> And in case anyone wonders, I don't normally have any interest in > photographing children, or adults for that matter, without asking or > being asked, but like PCSOs, sometimes they get in the frame.
Tom Baker, many years ago, when asked what was the best thing about being Doctor Who, replied "do you realize that I am the only man in the UK who can walk up to any child and say 'would you care for a Jelly Baby' without being arrested".
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who think that obeying the letter of the law protects them from arrest and those who have pissed off a cop.
> Savageduck wrote: >> On 2009-07-10 13:12:21 -0700, Alan Browne >> <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>>> whisky-dave wrote: >>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message >>>> news:P6GdnYvPyaer4MvXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote: >>>>>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
>>>>> "Officers have the power to view digital images >>>>> contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried >>>>> by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism >>>>> Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine >>>>> whether the images contained in the camera or mobile >>>>> telephone are of a kind, which could be used in >>>>> connection with terrorism."
>>>>> leaves a lot to interpretation. You take a close up photo of some neat >>>>> detail of the London Eye and it could be artistic or part of >>>>> recconaisance on where to place a bomb.
>>>>> There are endless possibilities of what strikes a persons fancy as a >>>>> photographic subject and what might be scouting.
>>>> Friends of mine have had that problem the police asking so why are you >>>> taking a picture of the 4 security cameras. he was an art student and started >>>> describing the way the barbed wire created a frame for the camera. that >>>> enclosed the clouds. The policeman believed him, I doubt a terrorist could >>>> come up with a long winded description of such things. >>>> I do wonder why a terrorist would bother taking such photos making >>>> themselves conspicuous like that.
>>> These days there is so much photography on the web, in magazines, >>> travel books, etc., etc., etc. that a terrorist would only need to do >>> research then eyeball recce. without a camera.
>> Google Earth is the London terrorist's friend.
> GE is 2D so it can be misleading wrt terrain, obstacles and so on. In > Google Maps there is the "terrain" view with elevation, but it is not > fine enough for tactical planning.
Sssh! If you tell them that they will be making all their plans using 1950's London Transport Tube maps. (Those straight lines are so much easier to work with.)
> On 2009-07-10 13:12:21 -0700, Alan Browne > <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
> > whisky-dave wrote: > >> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message > >>news:P6GdnYvPyaer4MvXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote: > >>>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
> >>> "Officers have the power to view digital images > >>> contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried > >>> by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism > >>> Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine > >>> whether the images contained in the camera or mobile > >>> telephone are of a kind, which could be used in > >>> connection with terrorism."
> >>> leaves a lot to interpretation. You take a close up photo of some neat > >>> detail of the London Eye and it could be artistic or part of > >>> recconaisance on where to place a bomb.
> >>> There are endless possibilities of what strikes a persons fancy as a > >>> photographic subject and what might be scouting.
> >> Friends of mine have had that problem the police asking so why are you > >> taking a picture of the 4 security cameras. he was an art student and started > >> describing the way the barbed wire created a frame for the camera. that > >> enclosed the clouds. The policeman believed him, I doubt a terrorist could > >> come up with a long winded description of such things. > >> I do wonder why a terrorist would bother taking such photos making > >> themselves conspicuous like that.
> > These days there is so much photography on the web, in magazines, > > travel books, etc., etc., etc. that a terrorist would only need to do > > research then eyeball recce. without a camera.
> Google Earth is the London terrorist's friend.
> -- > Regards,
> Savageduck
Interestingly, where I used to work in New Mexico disappeared from Google Earth. Try to find it, they've replaced it with an overlay of a bunch of tumbleweed. You can go down the state highway that leads to it, and the google road map from the car disappears. Picks up a few miles later. Yeah, cue up the X Files theme. ...
So, there is some censorship. At least in some areas of the US.
What is different is some areas don't have the detail due to lack of aerial coverage. Such as some rural areas vs some urban areas.
Some imagery appears a bit dated. If you know an area well, look at it, then zoom in and see if say houses are there that have been torn down or new complexes that were recently built are in the image.
<dhssresearc...@netscape.net> wrote: >On Jul 10, 4:21 pm, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> On 2009-07-10 13:12:21 -0700, Alan Browne >> <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>> > whisky-dave wrote: >> >> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message >> >>news:P6GdnYvPyaer4MvXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote: >> >>>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
>> >>> "Officers have the power to view digital images >> >>> contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried >> >>> by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism >> >>> Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine >> >>> whether the images contained in the camera or mobile >> >>> telephone are of a kind, which could be used in >> >>> connection with terrorism."
>> >>> leaves a lot to interpretation. You take a close up photo of some neat >> >>> detail of the London Eye and it could be artistic or part of >> >>> recconaisance on where to place a bomb.
>> >>> There are endless possibilities of what strikes a persons fancy as a >> >>> photographic subject and what might be scouting.
>> >> Friends of mine have had that problem the police asking so why are you >> >> taking a picture of the 4 security cameras. he was an art student and started >> >> describing the way the barbed wire created a frame for the camera. that >> >> enclosed the clouds. The policeman believed him, I doubt a terrorist could >> >> come up with a long winded description of such things. >> >> I do wonder why a terrorist would bother taking such photos making >> >> themselves conspicuous like that.
>> > These days there is so much photography on the web, in magazines, >> > travel books, etc., etc., etc. that a terrorist would only need to do >> > research then eyeball recce. without a camera.
>> Google Earth is the London terrorist's friend.
>> -- >> Regards,
>> Savageduck
>Interestingly, where I used to work in New Mexico disappeared from >Google Earth. Try to find it, they've replaced it with an overlay of a >bunch of tumbleweed. You can go down the state highway that leads to >it, and the google road map from the car disappears. Picks up a few >miles later. Yeah, cue up the X Files theme. ...
>So, there is some censorship. At least in some areas of the US.
You're just now finding out about this? (Cue clueless theme.) It's not just "some areas".
This is why I urge any adventurer to keep all old copies of their topographic data, paper or digital. You'd be surprised at the number of trails and roads that they "disappeared" from present data all across the world. My last trekking buddy and I were wondering why the data from Topo 5.0 didn't reveal the very same roads and trails that were on Topo 4.0 data. The very roads that we were already traveling on in hundreds of locations. It's since gotten worse with subsequent software "upgrades".
I swear, the more and more that I read on usenet, the more and more I believe that the rest of humanity is already brain-dead. Or at least desperately compelled to become that way.
On Jul 11, 12:26 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> GE is 2D so it can be misleading wrt terrain, obstacles and so on. In > Google Maps there is the "terrain" view with elevation, but it is not > fine enough for tactical planning.
I haven't checked London, but around here you can choose "Street View" on Google maps to see actual photos of the locations. Then you can go to the next pic taken a few yards away as if you're walking down the street.
Annika1980 wrote: > On Jul 11, 12:26 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote:
>> GE is 2D so it can be misleading wrt terrain, obstacles and so on. In >> Google Maps there is the "terrain" view with elevation, but it is not >> fine enough for tactical planning.
> I haven't checked London, but around here you can choose "Street View" > on Google maps to see actual photos of the locations. Then you can go > to the next pic taken a few yards away as if you're walking down the > street.
> On Jul 10, 4:21 pm, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> On 2009-07-10 13:12:21 -0700, Alan Browne >> <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said: >>> whisky-dave wrote: >>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message >>>> news:P6GdnYvPyaer4MvXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote: >>>>>> -----------<Le Snip>----------- >> Google Earth is the London terrorist's friend.
>> -- >> Regards,
>> Savageduck
> Interestingly, where I used to work in New Mexico disappeared from > Google Earth. Try to find it, they've replaced it with an overlay of a > bunch of tumbleweed. You can go down the state highway that leads to > it, and the google road map from the car disappears. Picks up a few > miles later. Yeah, cue up the X Files theme. ...
> So, there is some censorship. At least in some areas of the US.
> What is different is some areas don't have the detail due to lack of > aerial coverage. Such as some rural areas vs some urban areas.
> Some imagery appears a bit dated. If you know an area well, look at > it, then zoom in and see if say houses are there that have been torn > down or new complexes that were recently built are in the image.
Yup. What you see on Google Earth is not necessarily current actuallity. There are certainly areas which have been censored. What I find surprising is the number of sensitive areas which are not censored.
I have found detail lacking in some rural areas, but I have been surprised to find unexpected detail in areas of complete wilderness.
For somebody wanting to navigate some of the major destination cities for nefarious purposes, there is a fair amount of detail to work with.
|
