[justinr]

The Uk is increasingly being recognised as an authoritarian state demanding compliance with ever more restrictive laws backed up by overwhelming surveillance of a type that the Stasi could only have dreamt of. Am I being a little alarmist here?

Judge for yourselves-

Photographers will need ID.

Justin.

[logic14]

I understand the impulse, but seriously, from a security standpoint, how much use is this in stopping an attack? Its like over here across the pond, where they frisk grandma but don't ever question or even look at anyone with any color for fear of offending and/or lawsuits. its just one more thing to make it look like they are doing something to keep you safe.

[Lowell Goudge]

I may be wrong about this but, in most countries I believe the police already have the right to ask for ID from anyone who is behaving either suspiciously or improperly, and to question you about what you are doing.

What should make any one group of people exempt from this.

[Reportage]

just a thought, if a police is acting strangely or suspiciously...do the people have the right to question the police?

a suicide bomber need not necessary be dressed in desert robes...

[Ben_Edict]

I may be wrong about this but, in most countries I believe the police already have the right to ask for ID from anyone who is behaving either suspiciously or improperly, and to question you about what you are doing.

What should make any one group of people exempt from this.

So, do you think, taking photography with a semi- or pro-camera is inherently a suspicious activity, that needs to be controlled?

If I were a terrorist, I would simply use a point and shoot camera or my phone - and would take a film of the location I want to investigate. Much less obvious and basically uncontrollable, as there are ten of thousands of tourists doing exactly the same thing every single day in London.

Ben

[justinr]

I may be wrong about this but, in most countries I believe the police already have the right to ask for ID from anyone who is behaving either suspiciously or improperly, and to question you about what you are doing.

What should make any one group of people exempt from this.

There is more to this than just trying to stop terrorists, but let's deal with that bogie man first. In all the terrorists attacks in the west over the last decade or so has there ever been a single instance where the identity of the terrorist was not known, or at least where the need to carry ID would have prevented the attack? Nope.

In the UK there is a government push to get a national ID card introduced, the reasons they give for the need for one have been shown to be nonsensical every time they think of a new excuse, and it must be noted that it is not just the ID card that the government want but the whole national database that will underpin it allowing them to build an audit trail of everybody's life. Nowhere else in the world has this sort of database state been attempted (except the communist countries of the Iron Curtain, but they didn't have the computers back then) and one hope that it never will simply because it will never work let alone the moral objections to the complete loss of privacy and the nationalisation of ones identity.

The UK police have more than enough powers to deal with terrorism and there has been much indignation over the past few years induced by the abuse of these powers. Regular harassment of photographers of any sort is part and parcel life in London, see here for more info-

I'm a photographer, not a terrorist

It is also worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights has just ruled against the use of section 44 of the Terrorism act to stop photographers at will. The Met police are going to appeal which is no surprise whatsoever. In the meantime they are going to carry on doing the Home Office's dirty work for them by creating a totally bogus requirement for ID cards.

Justin.

[wasser]

The Uk is increasingly being recognised as an authoritarian state demanding compliance with ever more restrictive laws backed up by overwhelming surveillance of a type that the Stasi could only have dreamt of. Am I being a little alarmist here?

Judge for yourselves-

Photographers will need ID.

Justin.

Certainly I believe what's going on in the UK with respect to photographers in public places is ridiculous. IMO it's more the government wanting to act like it's effective in accomplishing something, than actually doing a thing. Seriously, if a terrorist wanted to photograph an area they could do it in a far more savvy and unnoticed way, especially with the incredible compactness of cameras today.

However, I do think your post is a little bit alarmist, at least in the part where it says "need". The article states photographers "should" carry ID. Of course, with how photographers have been treated in the UK recently, this little warning is really a minor thing. You could potentially expect poor treatment regardless.

I understand the impulse, but seriously, from a security standpoint, how much use is this in stopping an attack? Its like over here across the pond, where they frisk grandma but don't ever question or even look at anyone with any color for fear of offending and/or lawsuits. its just one more thing to make it look like they are doing something to keep you safe.

That is simply untrue. Prison populations clearly show otherwise. Of course I could be totally wrong and prisons are actually chock full of grammies.

I may be wrong about this but, in most countries I believe the police already have the right to ask for ID from anyone who is behaving either suspiciously or improperly, and to question you about what you are doing.

What should make any one group of people exempt from this.

I heard a radio show that had Sacramento's Sheriff John McGinness commenting about National ID and requirements with respect to ID.

In the USA there is no requirement to carry ID, and IIRC, if you're not suspected of committing any crime, a police officer can do nothing even if you refuse to identify yourself. Failing to produce ID if suspected of criminal activity will lead to your detainment, even if the criminal activity didn't require your detainment.

just a thought, if a police is acting strangely or suspiciously...do the people have the right to question the police?

a suicide bomber need not necessary be dressed in desert robes...

I cannot really comment about other countries, but here in the USA you can certainly question police officers. If, for some reason, you suspect a police officer is not who they appear to be, you can get their name and badge number and contact their department to verify.

[Lowell Goudge]

In all these responses, there are a few things that need to be separated out because they are not related to rights etc.

National Identity Cards. This is an issue because at present, there are namy many different forms of identity, and these are required for many reasons, from proof of age, to proof of nationality for travel, proof of identity for claiming government services, identity for use of financial services (including credit cards) etc.

The problem is that in many countries there is no uniform identification card. Proponents of a national identity card argue this is the reason for it's existance. Opponents argue it is an infringement of rights. Neither of these arguments has any bearing on being asked at any time to produce identification. Therefore take them out of the argument please they are not related.

As to what justifies "suspicious behavoir" or I believe in the US the term is "probable cause" that is something that is defined in the criminal and civil codes of each country, state, county and or city. Loitering may be against city bylaws for example, and if you are loitering in such a city, and the police confront you with that complaint, then they have a right to ask for ID.

What you need to do, in any such case is look at the laws pertaining to any activity, and address those laws. DOn't get that confused with the issue on ID cards because it has NOTHING to do with it,

Edit note:

One additional thing National Identity cards (or perhaps standardized identity cards in any country state provence etc) provide is Photo identification cards for people who otherwise would not have anything. My mother in law is over 80, does not travel internationally (hence no passport) and does not drive (hence no driver's liscence), and as a result, has no means of identifying who she is. There needs to be something for people in this situation because there are a lot of people who have no identificaiton.

[Lowell Goudge]

Certainly I believe what's going on in the UK with respect to photographers in public places is ridiculous. IMO it's more the government wanting to act like it's effective in accomplishing something, than actually doing a thing. Seriously, if a terrorist wanted to photograph an area they could do it in a far more savvy and unnoticed way, especially with the incredible compactness of cameras today.

true, most of the security measures have proven not to be able to stop todays threats, but they more reflect what we can do

However, I do think your post is a little bit alarmist, at least in the part where it says "need". The article states photographers "should" carry ID. Of course, with how photographers have been treated in the UK recently, this little warning is really a minor thing. You could potentially expect poor treatment regardless.

also true.

That is simply untrue. Prison populations clearly show otherwise. Of course I could be totally wrong and prisons are actually chock full of grammies.

only if the inmates have been there a long time

I heard a radio show that had Sacramento's Sheriff John McGinness commenting about National ID and requirements with respect to ID.

In the USA there is no requirement to carry ID, and IIRC, if you're not suspected of committing any crime, a police officer can do nothing even if you refuse to identify yourself. Failing to produce ID if suspected of criminal activity will lead to your detainment, even if the criminal activity didn't require your detainment.

two points here. 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. Now I admit it is natural to break into your own house if you locked yourself out, but to claim you are acting normally?

I cannot really comment about other countries, but here in the USA you can certainly question police officers. If, for some reason, you suspect a police officer is not who they appear to be, you can get their name and badge number and contact their department to verify.

probably true in most democratic countries, within the limits of the legeslation.

[alohadave]

One additional thing National Identity cards (or perhaps standardized identity cards in any country state provence etc) provide is Photo identification cards for people who otherwise would not have anything. My mother in law is over 80, does not travel internationally (hence no passport) and does not drive (hence no driver's liscence), and as a result, has no means of identifying who she is. There needs to be something for people in this situation because there are a lot of people who have no identificaiton.

Every state I've ever lived in has State ID cards that non-drivers can get for identification. I find it hard to believe that your mother couldn't get an ID card if she wished.

[Lowell Goudge]

Every state I've ever lived in has State ID cards that non-drivers can get for identification. I find it hard to believe that your mother couldn't get an ID card if she wished.

It is not a question of getting an ID card, but the reason why such cards exist.

[GeneV]

This starts to sound like countries in the former eastern block. So is London no longer viewable on Google Earth?

Outside of a military base, the police would be begging for a civil rights suit here for that kind of conduct, but then we have a First Amendment. We have had a similar controversy locally with police attempting to arrest people who take videos of arrests. It doesn't fly.

Also, if we are talking about Skip Gates, the professor was released immediately and not charged when his supervisors got a look at what he had done (which violated years of Massachusetts law). He did have an ID, which he showed immediately. The London police apparently still want the photographer whose case started this to pay a fine for photographing posters on the side of a building.

[justinr]

In all these responses, there are a few things that need to be separated out because they are not related to rights etc.

National Identity Cards. This is an issue because at present, there are namy many different forms of identity, and these are required for many reasons, from proof of age, to proof of nationality for travel, proof of identity for claiming government services, identity for use of financial services (including credit cards) etc.

The problem is that in many countries there is no uniform identification card. Proponents of a national identity card argue this is the reason for it's existance. Opponents argue it is an infringement of rights. Neither of these arguments has any bearing on being asked at any time to produce identification. Therefore take them out of the argument please they are not related.

As to what justifies "suspicious behavoir" or I believe in the US the term is "probable cause" that is something that is defined in the criminal and civil codes of each country, state, county and or city. Loitering may be against city bylaws for example, and if you are loitering in such a city, and the police confront you with that complaint, then they have a right to ask for ID.

What you need to do, in any such case is look at the laws pertaining to any activity, and address those laws. DOn't get that confused with the issue on ID cards because it has NOTHING to do with it,

I'm sorry but I think that I did point out that ID cards do have an awful lot to do with what is going on in the UK at present. But first I'd take issue with your assertion-

The problem is that in many countries there is no uniform identification card. Proponents of a national identity card argue this is the reason for it's existance.

Opponents, of which I am most certainly one, will point out that it is this very diversification of various ID methods that keeps us reasonably safe. Having a universal card that does everything creates an absolute honeypot for ID fraudsters in addition to the fact that should you lose such a card then your life will cease to function, it also enables the state to cause your life to cease functioning simply by disabling your card, by accident or design. In the UK the banks were asked their opinion about a universal ID card and in very polite terms they told the government to go stick it, they don't want to know.

Retuning to the current state of affairs in Britain I am afraid that there is a tremendous drive to document and record everything about everyone. The government calls this 'Transformational government' whilst those awake to what is going on call it the 'Database State'. Central to this scheme is the need to record and track an individuals interactions with either a state agency (Tax dept, dole office etc) or institutions such as banks and even retailers. To do this requires each person to identify themselves so the occasion can be logged and hence the desire to introduce an ID card.

However, there is growing opposition to to the plan and so rather than just implement one as the Dutch did a few years ago they are trying to create a consumer demand for it and they are not above leaning on the Metropolitan police to help out in this respect. If the need to provide ID becomes ever more universal then the greater the acceptance of the government scheme goes the thinking. I am not making this up, the plans and ploys of Whitehall are well documented here -

NO2ID

It's not just ID cards, it's the CCTV, ANPR (vehicle tracking), DNA retention, fingerprinting of kids at school (which even the Chinese baulked at), CRB checks and so on and you cannot separate any of these measures out from each other for they are part and parcel of the whole thrust of this governments unstated policy. It's why I got my family out of the place.

Justin.

[MRRiley]

I may be wrong about this but, in most countries I believe the police already have the right to ask for ID from anyone who is behaving either suspiciously or improperly, and to question you about what you are doing.

What should make any one group of people exempt from this.

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.

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?

This is just more security theater...

[GeneV]

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.

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 archtecture student drawing a picture of the Tower of London?

This is just more security theater...

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