When George Bush pronounced the war on terrorism as the "war on tourism", we thought it was because he was an idiot.
Maybe not, because it seems that tourism and terrorism are the same thing - or at least, they are to some police officers. How else can we explain the harassment of tourists who took photographs of a bus station?
Sadly, Klaus Matzka's experience was by no means unusual. Photographers of all kinds, from amateur snappers to pros, are finding that cameras attract all kinds of heavy-handed attention.
Snap a police officer at a peaceful demo and you could find yourself nicked under Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008; snap anything else and you could find yourself accused of terrorism and ordered to delete your photos.
Part of the problem is overzealous people in uniform, whether they're security guards or serving police officers. The Metropolitan Police's crazed anti-terrorism adverts (PDF), which brand photographers as potential bombers don't exactly help. But there's also a problem with the law.
The idea that Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act makes photographing the police illegal is pure fantasy. It doesn't mention photos at all. Rather, it says that it's illegal to gather or publish information about the police or armed forces that is "likely to be useful" to a mad bomber, foreign spy or Osama Bin Laden.
Misinterpretation of the Act
With pretty much everything in the world linked to terrorism these days - Icelandic banks' assets were frozen under anti-terrorism legislation, while anti-terrorism surveillance powers have also been used to crack down on such threats to life and liberty as dog crap and fly-tippers - then it's easy to see how that phrase can be misinterpreted, either by accident or by design.
Here's an example. Would footage of a policeman assaulting an innocent civilian who later died of internal bleeding be useful to a terrorist? How about footage of a policeman in body armour whacking a woman, his ID badges covered up so nobody can report him?
Of course they would. Circulation of such footage undermines people's respect for the police, makes us wonder if some of them are just thugs with badges, and makes the work of the good cops - who are, of course, the majority - much harder. They're brilliant recruitment tools for militants, too.
That doesn't make the photographs or video clips illegal, though. If you're hanging around military bases with a zoom lens, then of course you're going to get nicked - but irrespective of what uniformed goons might tell you, it's legal to take photos of pretty much anything else provided you're not breaking any other laws in the process.
Deleting photos
Forcing you to delete your snaps, on the other hand, is not legal - because if you're committing a crime, then your photos are evidence. Think about that for a second. If someone orders you to delete your shots, they're saying: "I have caught you committing a crime and I am ordering you to delete all the evidence."
Security guards don't have the powers to search you, and they can't legally delete your photos. The police can't delete your photos, either, unless they get a court order.
If you're hanging around RAF airfields with a zoom lens or you're on privately owned property then there are laws stopping you from taking pictures - but in most circumstances there's no reason why you can't photograph whatever you want.
Don't believe us? Ask the government. Here's Shahid Malik, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, on 1 April 2009: "Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place."
As Malik told Parliament: "Our counter-terrorism laws are not designed or intended to stop people taking photographs. That is simply not their aim. People have the right to take photographs in public places for legitimate reasons and we will do everything we can to uphold that right." Mr Malik says that police forces around the land are being issued new guidance telling them just that. Here's hoping they actually read it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? Then check out War on terror will wipe out web privacy
Sign up for the free weekly TechRadar newsletter
Get tech news delivered straight to your inbox. Register for the free TechRadar newsletter and stay on top of the week's biggest stories and product releases. Sign up at http://www.techradar.com/register
Your comments (7) Click to add a new comment
madman46
May 21st
7. Yeah i am a photographer and was taking some snaps of Kingston town centre in the summer and snapping buildings and flowers etc. Well the police came over and told me that i had been picked up on cctv taking alot of pics and so i was asked to show my pics to a policeman who then said that i was being asked under the anti terrorist law etc. This really is getting rediculous as the reason i got stopped was because they have a cctv camera slap bang in the middle of the highstreet on a pole and if you take a shot of the high street it ends up in the shot.It really is getting rediculous
Alert a moderator
kasino72
April 21st
6. Heh, I haven't encountered the sweary filter before. To recap: the wording of the law is not very good, and given the choice between a big mistake and conspiracy...
Alert a moderator
kasino72
April 21st
5. I think - as others have blogged - the problem is that the wording of the law is ****, and can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean. I'd blame ****-up rather than conspiracy, but of course the end result is the same.
Alert a moderator
mupwangle
April 21st
4. >>Weren't temporary restrictions about public order and breach of the peace?
The London ones? Yup, but it also gives them the rights to stop photographers and stop and search whoever they liked. It's a blanket "high risk" kinda thing.
Alert a moderator
kasino72
April 21st
3. Mupwangle - yeah, I should probably have been clearer about the exceptions to "most circumstances".
Weren't temporary restrictions about public order and breach of the peace?
Alert a moderator
mupwangle
April 21st
2. >>but in most circumstances there's no reason why you can't photograph whatever you want.
Currently in London, that's not true. Jacqui Smith, when asked to clarify the law regarding taking pictures, said that Chief Constables could impose temporary restrictions on photography under Section 44. London has had this restriction in place for months now - whenever it expires they just renew it. There are also certain places, such as Trafalgar Square and all the royal parks where you are not allowed to take photos for anything other than personal use. Whether that includes posting to sites such as Flickr is still open to debate.
In most instances, the rules are simple. If you are on public property you can take pictures of anything. This includes all buildings other than those covered by the Official Secrets Act and also those owned by the Civil Aviation AUthority, people of any sex and age as long as you aren't breaching the data protection act (an example of this would be posting a picture online of a recognisable person leaving a porn shop or the Priory) and that the person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Not allowed to take pictures into peoples homes, changing rooms in toilets, or being pervy to women in skirts, etc). If you are on private property and there are no signs (or you haven't bought a ticket with restrictions detailed on it) then you can usually assume that it is OK, however, if you are asked to stop then you must. Failure to do so means that you are then trespassing and can be prosecuted. Your equipment cannot be confiscated and your photos cannot be deleted. If there are signs up then you are being an **** if you ignore them.
If you take someones picture and they aren't happy about it, it is polite to show them and/or remove it, but they have no rights in this respect. If you try and take someones picture and they inform you that they aren't comfortable with it and you continue then you are likely to fall foul of harassment law. In the UK, you are allowed to sell or display any picture, even if there is a recognisable face. You could fall foul of defamation law if the picture appeared as a stock image in a newspaper article about drugs or something if you don't get a signed model release and you won't have a hope of selling it to an international agency without one, although there is no legal requirement in the UK.
I think that one of the problems with photographers is that there are a few who know all this stuff but like to push the boundaries. (I'm not talking about the Paparazzi - who should all be shot!, or proper press photographers) People who are just being arses. It makes it much harder for the rest of us.
This used be a great guide, but it's somewhat obsolete since the terrorism law changes - http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide
This is a useful resource that tries to keep up with the changes in the law : http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments