[Lowell Goudge]

It would almost be more suspicious to be a tourist without a camera--sort of like a traveler without luggage.

didn't we just have one of those?

Photography, especially in a city as photogenic as London, is neither suspicious or improper. It is an activity enjoyed and conducted by millions upon millions of people with very little correlation to crime much less to terrorism.

no argument, again what people need to do is step back and look rationally at the issue. What is needed is clear statements from the governments regarding what activities are acceptable and what are not, and the police should leave ordinary people alone,. That is the ideal but it should be the objective. The unfortunate reality is that I have never seen a government do anything clear.

To turn your argument around, why should photographers be subjected to greater scrutiny by the police than anyone else, for instance a person sitting in a park painting a landscape or an architecture student drawing a picture of the Tower of London?

No, but in paris for instance, you cannot sit and draw copies of the famous masters without a permit from the louvre

This is just more security theater...

I don't disagree,

I was meerly pointing out that at some point, regardless of what they are doing, people may face a need or expectation to produce ID. For someone to object regarding photographers having to produce ID when everyone else is expected to is also wrong.

It all comes back to the rights of the police to ask for ID, and not specifically related to photographers.

The fact is that I am neither for or against any of the specific things happening. THis is all something that will eventually go away when reality sets in and people discover that they cannot afford the cost of the crazy Documentation schemes the western governments are discussing. I try not to get too tied up in the arguments because of that.

[wasser]

Just look what happened to the cambridge professor caught breaking into his own house. No ID to prove he was the owner, yet complained when stopped.

Gates provided ID. He was arrested for disorderly conduct.

This is just more security theater...

I couldn't agree more.

It would almost be more suspicious to be a tourist without a camera--sort of like a traveler without luggage.

LOL!

[MRRiley]

... What is needed is clear statements from the governments regarding what activities are acceptable and what are not, and the police should leave ordinary people alone,. That is the ideal but it should be the objective. The unfortunate reality is that I have never seen a government do anything clear.

Unfortunately the beat cops either don't know or ignore the fact that the MPs told the Police leaders to stop harrassing photographers for simply taking photos. So even in the face of guidance the security grunts still make mountains out of pimples.

No, but in paris for instance, you cannot sit and draw copies of the famous masters without a permit from the louvre

Thats a copyright and intellectual property rights issue, not a security issue. Apples and oranges...

...I was meerly pointing out that at some point, regardless of what they are doing, people may face a need or expectation to produce ID. For someone to object regarding photographers having to produce ID when everyone else is expected to is also wrong.

It all comes back to the rights of the police to ask for ID, and not specifically related to photographers.

The fact is that I am neither for or against any of the specific things happening. THis is all something that will eventually go away when reality sets in and people discover that they cannot afford the cost of the crazy Documentation schemes the western governments are discussing. I try not to get too tied up in the arguments because of that.

In the UK, these "stop and ID's" seem to be targeting photographers in much greater frequency than "everyone else." Sure, the police should be able to request ID from anyone but only when they have a reasonable & articulable reason to believe a crime has occured or is actively occuring. The police are not omniscient and "I thought he was about to commit some crime, the nature of which I could only guess about" is insufficient grounds to interfere with the legal activities of ANY citizen.

You are more an optimist than I am if you think this is all going to go away. It is highly unusually for any government to give up control over something once they have achieved that control, regardless of the cost.

Mike

[justinr]

Which brings us to the vexed question of what is the point of all this security theatre and why are governments getting such a high off it? Here's a clue from the UK's Private Eye magazine (somewhat edited).

Following the Underpants Bomber scare, Gordon Brown was quick in following the US in committing to full body scanners at UK airports...... Good news for American scanner makers Rapiscan...

In the week after the bombing Former Bush Homeland security Chief Michael Chertoff made the media rounds and was widely quoted calling for a large scale deployment of next generation systems..... Eventually Chertoff admitted that RapiScan is a client of his lobbying firm, Chertoff Group.


And I think that there is an awful lot more of this going on behind the scenes. Big IT companies need to look for new markets and if there isn't a cold war to fight then let's go looking for the enemy within, for which you'll need lots 'n' lots of lovely computers, databases, consultants, logging devices, programmers etc etc.

Justin.

[Ratmagiclady]

You know, aside from the usual and very legitimate debate about surveillance/datatrails/freedom and all the usual concerns, it did cause me to think about how all the 'new media' out there can't exactly be issuing 'press credentials' as once were available.

Kind of a brand-new thought I haven't gone through all the way yet, but maybe there's a more proactive thing-of-value that could be done. For obvious reasons, it's silly and possibly disingenuous to try and equate someone walking around with a DSLR with *terrorism,* since there are far more discreet ways to scope a place out for whatever nefarious purpose: ....but, in terms of what I *actually* see out there, is that shooting on the street can tweak people's *privacy* concerns, particularly when their children are involved.

I sort of understand the paranoia, but if you're running around kind of trying to document life these days, well, something to show/verify you're on the level could be good just interpersonally.


I've been thinking lately it'd be kind of neat to have some kind of electronic credentials, maybe being able to also send em a copy of the shot on the spot (or sell them one )

[Lowell Goudge]

Thats a copyright and intellectual property rights issue, not a security issue. Apples and oranges...

actually no it's not, most of the artwork in the louvre was before copywrite laws existed.
Although I will agree it is the attempt of the louvre to control who makes copies of what is in the museum, and hence revenue from it,. but since much of the art was captured by napolean I am willing to bet it really does not belong to the french, regardless of where it sits.

[Lowell Goudge]

....but, in terms of what I *actually* see out there, is that shooting on the street can tweak people's *privacy* concerns, particularly when their children are involved.

I sort of understand the paranoia, but if you're running around kind of trying to document life these days, well, something to show/verify you're on the level could be good just interpersonally.

this was the basic issue behind the greek photographer that was arrested in london last year for photographing a mother and child on the underground. It was an issue of privacy and in some ways common sence that should have been used by the photographer.

[MRRiley]

actually no it's not, most of the artwork in the louvre was before copywrite laws existed.
Although I will agree it is the attempt of the louvre to control who makes copies of what is in the museum, and hence revenue from it,. but since much of the art was captured by napolean I am willing to bet it really does not belong to the french, regardless of where it sits.

Regardless, the restrictions are highly unlikely to have anything to do with security...

[Ratmagiclady]

this was the basic issue behind the greek photographer that was arrested in london last year for photographing a mother and child on the underground. It was an issue of privacy and in some ways common sence that should have been used by the photographer.

Well, I don't know that story, and I know it's a side-topic. I was just thinking, 'Hey, it could actually be kind of handy, amid all this, to actually use some of all this electronics to be able to show, 'Hey, I'm on the level, here, and here's how both you and should you need, you can see how the images are used (or, again, even buy a copy) ...law enforcement can find me if you're scared of people..'

Of course, it sounds like a system easy to abuse or make mandatory, but sometimes I think, 'Well, going through all this to digitize the photography, why can't we digitize a *release?*

[B Grace]

Two thoughts:

1.) We already have international ID cards. Passports. I'm sorry but instead of building a whole new level of government we should improve what we already have. Make them smart or electronic, whatever.

2.) Any law enforcement officer in the US may briefly detain a person and ask for ID even if that person is not acting strangely. It's the law in my state anyway. How that person reacts from that point is often the deciding factor in the situation.

[Rupert]

Duh! You guys have turned your country into a haven for militant Muslims and they march in your streets with signs asking for your demise and speaking of beheadig anyone speaking ill of their "holy koran". They fester there in groups of bitter and poverty stricken youth that is easy pickins' for the bomb masters and suicide whisperers that have control of the "holy mosques" you have allowed to become schools of terror......and you wonder why you are losing your freedoms? Friend, you have already lost your country, did you really think freedom would stick around after it was gone? Relocate....maybe it is not too late for you in Switzerland or in Denmark....a couple of places where they seem to think Muslims running their country is not a good idea. Or you can move here to Texas, where they will never get a foothold big enough to take root. Yankees like Jesus George are bad enough, but Muslims running the show here......not happening.
Regards!

[flyer]

this was the basic issue behind the greek photographer that was arrested in london last year for photographing a mother and child on the underground. It was an issue of privacy and in some ways common sence that should have been used by the photographer.

It was not an issue of privacy. When you are in a public space, you can't expect privacy.

[GeneV]

actually no it's not, most of the artwork in the louvre was before copywrite laws existed.
Although I will agree it is the attempt of the louvre to control who makes copies of what is in the museum, and hence revenue from it,. but since much of the art was captured by napolean I am willing to bet it really does not belong to the french, regardless of where it sits.

There are many reasons you can't have a camera in many, if not most, art museums. One is the possibility of flash.

[cupic]

In this age where acts of terrorism is a shame that police and the like have this "I'll throw my weight around and hassle innocent ppl to prove a point"(Yes I admit some are some aren't) but seriously Its govt worldwide that have the togs in there radar and its a mission in there eyes to do this.Ahem to a reality check


cheers

[Ben_Edict]

No, but in paris for instance, you cannot sit and draw copies of the famous masters without a permit from the louvreI don't disagree,

That is a copyright issue (even for ancient works of art there may be rights of use retained by some institution or a private owner) and may also be a preventive measure against counterfeiting, and then there are conservatory reasons (no flash) and to some extent safety issues (tripods may not only be a hindrance to other visitors, they may actually be a trip hazard) but it has nothing to do with over-enthusiastically applied security measures. (By the way these copyright issues in museums also are important for us photogs and in many museums you are not allowed to take photographs due to that.)

Ben