[Hey Elwood]

Get ready for the United States to be the same way.

[Wheatfield]

You are right of course, but my gut reaction is to take care of the problem when a weirdo is roaming around a kid under my care.

So define weirdo.
Is it a middle aged guy with a camera?
How about someone's slightly eccentric grandmother?
Would you be as quick to feed her her cane?

I've taken pics of other peoples children before and always asked permission before... it's not hard and avoids lots of problems.

But is asking permission required? I suspect in Quebec the answer is yes, but how about in Alberta?
Or London England?

And if permission isn't required, do you feel you are above the law simply because your mind is rotting from paranoia?

Thats your choice, some of us care who roams around our kids. I don't know how things are where you are, but life isn't a Normand Rockwell painting around here... not a day goes by where you don't hear of weirdos being busted for doing horrible things to kids around here.

We hear the same thing where I am. It would almost be enough to make you think that kids are less safe now than they were when we sent them to Catholic schools half a centry ago.
The truth, however, is that news media have bought into the same paranoia that you are buying into and regurgitate the same story over and over again until you believe there is a pandemic of abuse.
One incident reported a thousand times is not a thousand incidents, no matter what the media buys into.

I am pretty sure that the Greek gentleman had good intentions, but unfortunately this world has changed and we must all be more carefull.

If he had good intentions, and by deleting the images, he certainly showed that he did, why was he arrested and charged under a drift net law rather than something specific?
More to the point, why was he arrested at all?

In this instance, was the right person even arrested? If the photography in and of itelf wasn't illegal, then was the father in the wrong by confronting the photographer, which may well consitute an assault?

Look at the bigger implications of this;
By making the general public paranoid of strangers, we are not making our society safer, we are, in fact, making it less safe. By taking away people's right to take photographs of common everyday scenes (and make no mistake, this sort of arrest does exactly that), we are leaving the power of observation and evidence gathering up to the police, and taking it away from citizens who are simply concerned.
From a Canadian perspective, do you really want the likes of the people who killed Robert Dziekanski to be the only ones who have the right to gather photographic evidence?
Remember now, we are discussing a group of peole who are pretty undeniably guilty of manslaughter at the very least, lying on their reports and sandbagging the subsequent investigation.
Do you feel your children are safer in a society where a stranger may be afraid to help them simply for fear of being branded as a kidnapper or whack job?
For myself, I'm no longer willing to help a lone child out no matter what the circumstances because of the unintended consequences of getting involved.
Do you want me to help your child across a busy street rather than let him try it on his own and get whacked by a bus?
Because that, my friend, is where we are going.
I wouldn't want to see a kid get hit by a car, but I'm at the point where I won't take the chance of involving myself in his well being because of the possibility of it backfiring.

In the end, who is the whack job? Is it the innocent photographer who is merely following a calling to record the goings on around him or the person who's brain has been eaten by the worms of paranoia?

And ultimately, is your child going to be better off because of your paranoia affecting my actions, which have a much better chance of helping him than they do of harming him?

[Gio645]

As for the matter of the thread, one might understand a tourist, not knowing what is acceptable, but for a well known photographer not to know the acceptable limits is another matter.

He did not pas any acceptable limit in my opinion. He was just doing street photography. As simple as that.

[Wheatfield]

sorry if this appears to be a hijacking of the thread, but since many of the opinions offered here represent the perspective of people of different nationalities, and their own national laws, has anyone considered collecting a concise summary of the different legal considerations as a function of country?

This might also consider laws concerning being a public nuisance or causing a public disturbance as well as security issues and privacy issues.

As for the matter of the thread, one might understand a tourist, not knowing what is acceptable, but for a well known photographer not to know the acceptable limits is another matter.

Lowell, admitedly I don't know the specific laws in question, other than what has been said here, which is that it is not illegal to take pictures in the circumstances he is in.
If it were illegal, then why was he not charged with a photography specific crime?
Now, how does someone sitting in a subway seat snapping a few pictures constitute a public disturbance or a security breach?
One presumes if the guy is a well known photographer, he will know the laws regarding his avocation, and presumably not break them.

As soon as we accept that the police have the right to apply laws that are the equivalent of drift net fishing as a means of intimidating people into complying with the whims of the paranoid, we may as well kiss any freedoms we have goodbye.

[Lowell Goudge]

Lowell, admitedly I don't know the specific laws in question, other than what has been said here, which is that it is not illegal to take pictures in the circumstances he is in.

this is my point, we don't know the laws necessairly, but wouldn't it be nice if we as a forum, made an attempt to?

If it were illegal, then why was he not charged with a photography specific crime?

it may be a civil not criminal matter

Now, how does someone sitting in a subway seat snapping a few pictures constitute a public disturbance or a security breach?

see above, it may be a civil issue not criminal

One presumes if the guy is a well known photographer, he will know the laws regarding his avocation, and presumably not break them.

not to start a big debate here but I find there are a small number of photographers who seemingly set out to push beyond reasonable limits deliberately. I can't make any assessment on this specific case, but it is just an impression I have. Aslo note I don't want this to be a new subject for debate

As soon as we accept that the police have the right to apply laws that are the equivalent of drift net fishing as a means of intimidating people into complying with the whims of the paranoid, we may as well kiss any freedoms we have goodbye.

again, I go back to my attempted "hijacking" of the thread. shouldn't we, as a responsible group of interested photographers, attempt to understand where the legal and civil limits of our hobby are, for each country we practice that hobby in?

Also, and this is something very important to understand when visiting a foreign country. Not all countries have the same rights and freedoms that we have as Canadians, even if our criminal and civil laws evolved from that other country. Just because we can act one way at home, does not imply we can act that way abroad.

[65535]

wheatfield, you've hit the nail on the head. Suffice to say that fear is the most effective yet generally invisible means of oppression, and slowly but surely every civilized nation is falling victim to it.

πολύ τραβηγμένη η υπόθεση.

[Wheatfield]

it may be a civil not criminal matter

The police won't arrest you and charge you with a criminal offence unless a criminal offence is being accused.
By charging him with a drift net offence rather than a specific offence, they are, in essence, saying that we don't like what you are doing, but we don't have a law that says you can't do it.
Civil matters get resolved via lawsuit, not via criminal charges.

[Lowell Goudge]

here is the best overall reference I have found for canada.

Ambientlight.ca - Laws

[Lowell Goudge]

The police won't arrest you and charge you with a criminal offence unless a criminal offence is being accused.
By charging him with a drift net offence rather than a specific offence, they are, in essence, saying that we don't like what you are doing, but we don't have a law that says you can't do it.
Civil matters get resolved via lawsuit, not via criminal charges.

I don't disagree, but since we don't have the specifics there is no point speculating what went on between the parties. If an argument or disagreement took place it rapidly becomes a disturbance. but again, we are all guessing because we are applying perhaps what is permissible in canada to another country with potentially differing laws

[Wheatfield]

I don't disagree, but since we don't have the specifics there is no point speculating what went on between the parties. If an argument or disagreement took place it rapidly becomes a disturbance. but again, we are all guessing because we are applying perhaps what is permissible in canada to another country with potentially differing laws

From:
Answer | Transport for London

"Do I need permission to film or take photographs on the tube?

If you are just passing through, you shouldn't have a problem taking personal snaps, souvenir shots etc, although you must NOT use flash or lights on any of our platforms.

However, if you want to spend more than 10-15 minutes at any one station videoing or taking photos, or if they are for professional use, you MUST have a permit.

For information on permits to film or take photographs on the Tube, please contact:

London Underground Film Office
55 Broadway
London
SW1H 0BD"

Hope this helps with your thoughts on this.
If this reference is, in fact, a correct assessment, it would appear that the photographer broke no law, and the police are essentially guilty of pandering.

[celetron]

I spent some time in UK and from my personal experience I must say brits think quite differently than the Greek people. They have their own way to support their laws by strictly enforcing them with no exceptions (well at least they try to). That is a working way of keeping things in order.

From another point of view however, one might say it is not quite humanistic to completely ignore the possibility that some of the accused persons might not intent to illegalize or cause any trouble to the society... Now if the law and the minion of the law should protect the people, then that should also be applied to that minority of accused persons… They also have the right to enjoy protection and that is why the enforcement of the law should not be strictly applied to them with the excuse of the omission of their case during the lawmaking… That is called side casualty and it is absurd at least for that case … Well that is my opinion anyway…

[Wheatfield]

I spent some time in UK and from my personal experience I must say brits think quite differently than the Greek people. They have their own way to support their laws by strictly enforcing them with no exceptions (well at least they try to). That is a working way of keeping things in order.

From another point of view however, one might say it is not quite humanistic to completely ignore the possibility that some of the accused persons might not intent to illegalize or cause any trouble to the society... Now if the law and the minion of the law should protect the people, then that should also be applied to that minority of accused persons… They also have the right to enjoy protection and that is why the enforcement of the law should not be strictly applied to them with the excuse of the omission of their case during the lawmaking… That is called side casualty and it is absurd at least for that case … Well that is my opinion anyway…

What is also absurd is (in this instance) it appears as if the police strictly enforced a vague law designed to cover anything that isn't covered by specific laws.
To use a fishing metaphor, law enforcement should be the equivalent of fly fishing, not drift net fishing.

[Lowell Goudge]

From:
Answer | Transport for London

"Do I need permission to film or take photographs on the tube?

If you are just passing through, you shouldn't have a problem taking personal snaps, souvenir shots etc, although you must NOT use flash or lights on any of our platforms.

However, if you want to spend more than 10-15 minutes at any one station videoing or taking photos, or if they are for professional use, you MUST have a permit.

For information on permits to film or take photographs on the Tube, please contact:

London Underground Film Office
55 Broadway
London
SW1H 0BD"

Hope this helps with your thoughts on this.
If this reference is, in fact, a correct assessment, it would appear that the photographer broke no law, and the police are essentially guilty of pandering.

did you click on the link to the permits?

I quote directly

"Permits
Any individual or film production company wanting to film or take photographs on the Tube must seek prior permission from the London Underground (LU) Film Office.

There are three types of permit:

Student or non-professional
Two-hour
Location
All permit requests must be made in writing, preferably via one of our application forms. You can start an online application now."

I think what everyone will be left with is an interpretation of "a few snaps"

[Blue]

Not sure what this means.

Exactly what it said. The map is probably based on some self serving criteria and the results are far from the reality. There is no way the U.S. is 35th on overall freedom. The U.S.A. is far from perfect. However, the country can't be painted with a single brush. Every state is sovereign with its on laws.

[Blue]

What is also absurd is (in this instance) it appears as if the police strictly enforced a vague law designed to cover anything that isn't covered by specific laws.
To use a fishing metaphor, law enforcement should be the equivalent of fly fishing, not drift net fishing.

It is also ironic that a country ranked so high for freedom has the most high density of surveillance cameras in London!