I'm a photographer, not a Terrorist!

A couple of months ago saw the suspension of Section 44 in the UK. Section 44 gave police stop-and-search powers against individuals without suspicion as part of the Terrorism Act 2000 and was used frequently against photographers (official or otherwise) in public places.

The following statement was made by the Home Secretary Theresa May on the 8th July 2010 to the House of Commons:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on stop and search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

On Wednesday of last week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that its judgment in the case of Gillan and Quinton is final. This judgment found that the stop and search powers granted under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 amount to the violation of the right to a private life.

This would thankfully see an end to incidents like this...



Unfortunately there are still a swathe of laws that police can and will still use to harass photographers, most notably Section 43, which is similar to Section 44 but requires an officer to suspect that you are a terrorist and Section 76 which makes it illegal to ‘elicit information about a police officer’ which includes photographing them.

In America the government seem to have taken a different route...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2d73fd875da.jpg[/atsimg]

What they want is for the people themselves to snitch on others, giving them free licence to intervene and claim they have received a warning and are therefore 'suspicious' (the key word) of your actions. I'm sure many innocent plane spotters, amongst others, will be effected by this blatant paranoia injection into society.

Remain vigilant

Giving this a little bump, thoughts people?

So effectively the suspension of Section 44 hasn't really made much of a difference?

Then again I bet the police could still stop the average member of public under the section 44 act and the member of public wouldn't even have a clue that it had been suspended.

Been following this stuff and it's just getting worse and worse. It's not just terrorism they use as an excuse. We are labeled as pedofiles or as it's the trend in US people who illegally wiretap. They've said they send memos to enforcers etc. but it doesn't seem to be helping. Photography is just an excuse to pully people.

reply to post by Kram09

Originally posted by Kram09
So effectively the suspension of Section 44 hasn't really made much of a difference?

I suppose it has made a psychological difference, in that any possible Draconian law being suspended is a positive and could potentially have a snowball effect on other intrusive laws. But yes, there are many 'twin' laws that still give police the authority to search and arrest you on a 'suspicion' of being a terrorist. Which begs the question; what does a terrorist look/act like?

What if I hold my camera this way?
Or take a picture of that building?

When do I stop being a tourist and start being a terrorist?

So yes, Section 44's suspension is a token gesture in the long term.

Originally posted by Kram09
Then again I bet the police could still stop the average member of public under the section 44 act and the member of public wouldn't even have a clue that it had been suspended.

Very good point. People naturally comply with authority figures and not knowing the laws and regulations doesn't help. These laws also put up a barrier between police and citizens, for example Section 76 which makes it illegal to ‘elicit information about a police officer’. Is it illegal for me to ask for a policeman's name? What if I witness police brutality, is it illegal for me to photograph the event as evidence?

Under Section 76 it is.

Know you rights and stick to them

reply to post by PsykoOps


Well that is another issue I'm glad you brought up

A father taking pictures/video of his children at the local park is now labelled a pervert. What is the world coming to?

What's even worse is that the vast majority of these cases are brought up, not by police, but by fellow parents.

We are truly living in the Age of Paranoia.

I blame the media. They just love hyping up the fear whenever they can. Wheter it's terrorist, pedo's or boogie man they love it.

About six months ago my girlfriend (an artist/photographer) was out taking photos of things in her town centre. A police officer came up to her and told her that she was breaking the law and that photography was linked to terrorism. Outraged, my girlfriend told the police lady that she was a student and asked who else she could possibly be other than a photographer, to which she replied "You could be part of that Al.. kydey?". She didn't even know the name of Al Queda.
In the end she was let off because it was quite obvious that she wasn't doing anything to harm anyone, and even if she was part of a terrorist organisation why the hell would she want to blow up Debenhams?

It was a ridiculous incident and I've been told by a friend who's a police officer that the officer in question had absolutely no right to approach her. I think she herself was quite ignorant of what it was she was actually supposed to be doing, which isn't very comforting when you consider the fact that she's one of the people who are supposed to be protecting us.

agreed, you pretty much cant do ANYTHING out there because people will accuse you of something or another....here in NC, I was told the police QUESTIONED a man because he hugged a child...HIS OWN CHILD
Its insane, I'm a shutterbug and love using my camera to take picas of my son, daughter and their friends, esp on family vacations
It wont be long, cameras will end up being banned...
S&F for you

i fail to see how they broke any law
uk anti social act

reply to post by LiveForever8


Hey LiveForever8, long time...

I agree with the above poster.
I blame the media.
I blame the news and the TV.
They are the one's responsible for getting the 'news' out to the public.
Well, you and I both know that the news is just out for one thing. A story.
There is hardly any good news on TV anymore. It's all about abductions, and terrorism, etc...
So how is the public supposed to discern the difference between any of it?
All they see are the bad incidents on TV, so they think that everything they witness is bad.

You see, taking pictures, in itself, is NOT a crime.
There are 1000's of photographers that will agree.
But there are people who commit crimes with cameras all the time.

I feel, with this law, as with most.
One bad apple spoils the entire bunch.

reply to post by The Empty Skies


Your GF needs to get to know photographers rights. That way next time she can educate the cops and maybe the message goes through someday.

reply to post by The Empty Skies


Well your girlfriend isn't alone in her unfamiliarity of the laws, especially when, as you point out, the policemen and women on the beat seem clueless as to what they are supposed to be doing. The numerous ridiculous terrorism acts/laws have brought an already over-stretched police force to the brink of a nervous breakdown.

I saw an article recently written by Dom Joly who was talking about his experiences during his latest project which saw him travelling to some of the most freedom lacking countries in the world. In North Korea he was taking pictures here, there and everywhere. The same could be said for Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Rwanda and Lebanon.

However, the first time he whipped his camera out in the US he was questioned by police. Go figure

I was going to school for photography just after 9/11, and yeah, things got unreasonable pretty fast, and haven't really let up.

General notes to any law enforcement officers reading this:

1. Terrorists don't use tripods.
   
2. Terrorists are not going to use large format (4x5" sheet film) or medium format cameras. Hell, at this point they're not even going to be using film at all. So if the photographer in question has a non-digital camera, leave them alone already!
   
3. Terrorists are not going to have models, makeup artists, or friends holding foam board to bounce light onto a subject.

I think most security agents who are worried about terrorism are flattering themselves to think the site they're "protecting" would even be a worthwhile target...

Ok, so who's the guy in the video really?! Either he knows someone on ATS or is on it himself.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

If, on the other hand, when you ask the police if you are being detained, and they answer that they just want to ask you a few questions, which is probably how they will answer, indirectly to your direct question, ask the question again. "Am I being detained". If the police answer that question directly with a no, then clarify if you are free to go. If they answer yes, then leave. If they answer no, then clarify again if you are being detained. If they get defensive, and begin using your valid questions as an excuse to intimidate you, respectfully inform them that you wish to fully co-operate to the best of your ability because you are in fear for your life, since they are armed.

If they continue to intimidate you, ask respectfully that they call the duly elected Sheriff to the scene. If they ask why, inform them that you are skeptical of the jurisdiction in the matter, and would like a duly elected Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff present so that due process of law may be afforded you. If they begin threatening you with obstruction of justice charges at this point, respectfully inform them that you believe that there is an obstruction of justice taking place, but that it is not you obstructing justice, and very well could be them, and if that is the case, then those police officers might be guilty of acting under color of law, impersonating a police officer, malicious prosecution, illegal detainment, and simulation of legal process, to name just a few other crimes.

If, after informing them of this, they ask you if you are threatening them, make clear that as a law abiding citizen you are doing your due diligence in informing citizens of the law. If they persist in your detainment at this point, politely make clear that you are challenging the jurisdiction and that they have a sworn duty to prove on record jurisdiction in order to move forward with whatever actions they intend to take against you. Also, keep requesting that a duly elected law enforcement officer, such as the Sheriff, or Deputy Sheriff be present.

Parts of it almost verbatim to this and other posts Jean has made.

As I suspected it holds no water outside of the US, as this guy was still detained for 8 hours - even if he was released simply giving his details would have avoided that, which they now have, and he is probably on one of those lists he did not consent to being on.

Not that I advocate doing so, but short of armed responses, with these stop and search laws, we're screwed..