It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Terror Law To Make Photographing Police Illegal

page: 2
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
As a Canadian I am not aware of any new legislation being passed in regards to photographing the police, I found this on some site in regards to whether it is legal or illegal today.

Can I take pictures of the police?

Yes. They’re public figures in public places—they shouldn’t expect privacy.

Can a police officer take my camera and/or force me to delete my photos?

No. For a police officer to take your camera he or she either has to have a warrant or reasonable suspicion that it was used in an offence. (Stop beating people with your cameras.) If that’s the case, it would be considered evidence, and deleting your photos would be counter-productive. They can ask you to delete your photos, but you have the right to refuse and, in most cases, the police have no legal recourse. They also can’t take your notes, tape recorders or film. If you are close to a crime scene (and not a part of the crime) the police’s right to search you is no different from any other day, any other place.

Am I obstructing justice by taking pictures?

Maybe, but probably not. Ask yourself, did my photography impede the officers’ ability to do their jobs? If yes, was it intentional? If your intentions are benign, precedent dictates that you’re not committing a crime.

What do I do if I’m arrested?

Our right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. First, don’t put yourself in a position where you could be arrested for other reasons—if you’re drunk in public, violent, or destroying property, you are actually doing something illegal, and it weakens your case substantially.

If you are going into a situation where you’re worried about being unlawfully arrested, leave a trail of evidence documenting the situation. Bring reliable witnesses and tell them to take notes right away if something happens. Call yourself on your cell phone—that way you’ll have an audio recording of what was said stored in an offsite location. If you didn’t have the foresight to do this planning, go about collecting evidence as soon as you can after you’re released—the longer you leave it, the less persuasive things become.

And always follow it up—file a complaint, call a lawyer. If you turn the other cheek no one will know what happened, and there will be no fair process to determine if abuses took place.

The Alma Mater Society and the Radical Beer Faction have suggested that if students have specific complaints with the actions of police on campus, they should file a formal complaint with the RCMP detailing the incident.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Take the photo, get arresed, got to court.


Use their own lines and evidence against them.


Point out how many times CCTV has filmed you that day, get a friend to photograph you in public and point out how that is legal. Remind them that the police were also filming you. Then use their biggest attack, "If you have nothing to hide, whats your problem" on themselves. The government maydo whatever they like, but there are some good judges out there, and the juries are regular people.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

You need to change your title


This thread has nothing to do with Canada!

The only issue in Montreal, Quebec, Canada is whether or not we can call the police "doughnut eaters", which is a whole different thing than taking their picture -- important (snicker), but not nearly so serious as the UK problem.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by wayno]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
The spin on this is remarkable - it's a pity that people have either not read the entire piece, or have overlooked the whole quote:

According to the British Journal of Photography, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which is set to become law on February 16, “allows for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who takes pictures of officers ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.”


That said, the legislation is here

The relevant part refers to "documents" and in particular, electronic documents:

Power to remove documents: supplementary provisions

(1) In sections 1 to 8 “document” includes any record and, in particular, includes information stored in electronic form.

(2) In the application of those sections to a search under 52(1) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24), for references to a constable substitute references to an authorised officer within the meaning of that section.

(3) In the application of those sections in relation to the search of a vehicle references to the occupier of the premises are to the person in charge of the vehicle.

source

So in reality, they still don't have the power to arrest you for filming or taking pictures unless it is


likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.


And you still have a lot of other rights as specified in the act.

Still, this has the potential to be abused by over zealous officers.

BTW the police can already arrest you under a Public Order offense for swearing at them, or for swearing in a public place after they have asked you to stop.

[edit on 29/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Thing is budski, you just know they are gonna use those laws to enforce whatever they want in a given situation.

Remember the criminal justice bill when they bought that in. It was initally done to stop new age travellers from taking over land etc but has been used to stop gatherings of more than a few people, stop private parties, raves, demonstrations etc

Like most laws they bring in to do with terrorism it conviniently allows them to harras the general public 99% of the time more than for use on actual terrorist activities, which of course is what they wanted the law for in the first place but they wouldnt get it through without the terrorist tag.



[edit on 29/1/09 by cropmuncher]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


That’s what I found Budski, so this is just more scaremongering by the “IT’S A POLICE STATE!!!” crowd.

As for the possibility this legislation can be abused, I’m not sure how. The section you quoted applies to the police’s ability to copy documents and doesn’t really apply to what you or I can do.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
why is the law about suspected of being of use to terrorists directed at police? What about a terrorist who takes pictures of a building?



Also, the scope for "terrorist suspicion" could be quite large and left open for abuse at any number of rallies- anti animal abuse, BNP marches, Palestinian protests etc


Just more of the fear culture chip chippin away at our freedoms



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
They are already arresting people when it isnt law so whats gonna happen when it is?




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by cropmuncher
They are already arresting people when it isnt law


But these cases make the news and/or can be appealed.


The government (and police) have certainly abused the wording of various laws and brought in new draconian legislation but not in this case. What has been claimed in the OP doesn't seem to be true at all.

To jump on the outrage bus in this case serves only to dilute the value of the opposition to genuine cases of government/police abuse when and where it actually occurs.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


It's all to do with the seizure of "documents" and the piece quoted just clarifies that they also mean electronic documents in particular.

An electronic document can be a digital photo or video, and it could also be a digital sound recording.

they then have 24 hours to copy the document (or 48 in some cases) before returning it to you in the same state in which it was confiscated, as long as there is nothing in it that can be used for the purpose described.

They also have the burden of proof, which will be very hard to circumvent, given that they will need to PROVE the material is being used for the purpose of or the committing of a terrorist act.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Yeah but it only relates to what they can do with it once seized, it gives them no greater reason to do the seizing in the first place beyond what they already have.

I’m sure there’ll be a few loopholes so something can be done that wasn’t intended by the legislatures but that’s the case for practically any law. What I meant was that this can’t be abused to allow the police to do what the OP originally claimed they would; i.e. arrest someone for taking pictures of police.




[edit on 29-1-2009 by Mike_A]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Please don't tell me that americans think that if it's a law in britain it's a law in canada.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
As the proponents of the millions of close circuit cameras around Britain keep bleating:

"Why are you scared of your image being taken if you've got nothing to hide?"



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


exactly - so basically the OP is completely wrong.

We also have this:

76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc

(1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—
“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc

(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 offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on summary conviction—

(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(4) In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).

(5) Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.”.

(2) In the application of section 58A in England and Wales in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) the reference in subsection (3)(b)(i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

(3) In section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (defences), in subsection (5)(a) after “58,” insert “58A,”.

(4) After Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 insert the Schedule set out in Schedule 8 to this Act.



They key here is (a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—

and 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.


Taking a photograph is not eliciting information, and there is an easily used defense which I think may be in there to protect journalists.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Agreed.

Like I said, it’s scaremongering with a tinge of, probably now justified, paranoia. In the end it only makes it easier to bring in abusing legislation because it desensitizes the public to these kinds of stories. The apathetic logic is that we’ve seen these stories before and they always turn out to be rubbish.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno

You need to change your title


This thread has nothing to do with Canada!

The only issue in Montreal, Quebec, Canada is whether or not we can call the police "doughnut eaters", which is a whole different thing than taking their picture -- important (snicker), but not nearly so serious as the UK problem.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by wayno]


From reading the article, it says Canada also. So the title has Canada in it.
Not a one liner.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


I don't fault you, but I do believe the source is exaggerating about it being or soon to be a crime to take a picture of the police. Maybe it is under the conditions Budski stated, but in general I could never see this happening.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
There is a solution and they do already exist but they may be a bit pricey:

A camera that can connect to a server and upload the images on the fly.

If you have no physical storage in the camera they may not be able to take the camera.

If the law exists only so that they can check the memory and make copies then removing your camera is a no go, surely.

All we need now are low cost versions of these that can take a pic and beam it instantly to a preset server of your choosing.

Mobile phones are ok but quality is too low and you need to specify recipients et al to send the image.

That'll be one in the eye for 'em!


[edit on 29/1/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
another insidious invasive step by these too lazy to work for a living over educated mind control freeks who think yhey have a sense of entitlement to reek havoc opun our social freedoms.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno

You need to change your title


This thread has nothing to do with Canada!

The only issue in Montreal, Quebec, Canada is whether or not we can call the police "doughnut eaters", which is a whole different thing than taking their picture -- important (snicker), but not nearly so serious as the UK problem.


What hasn't been mentioned, either, is that there are already jusridictions in Quebec that have similar laws. I'm guessing thery're municipal. The other side of the equasion is that our French cousins have a grand tradition of hurling verbal abuse at any civil servants that they perceive as 'seducing the canine'.

So, not quite up there with banning photography of cops.




top topics



 
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join