About the unmarked cars
Maybe what we need is something on these unmarked police cars that tells us not to photograph them. Say something like "eciloP".
No snapping: Photographers get collars felt
Fancy getting your camera out this Bank Holiday weekend? Best be careful who you point it at. For instance, don’t go taking snaps of unmarked police cars. This was the mistake made by amateur photographer David Gates, who photographed a Police BMW parked illegally at a bus stop in Portsmouth, Hants. Before you could say “ …
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 10:04 GMT Adam Williamson
Fair point?
You say the - rather vague - notion of individuals at demonstrations using cameras to "wind up" individual officers is a fair point.
How's that, then? Unless they are beating said officers around the head with a chunky DSLR, I fail to see how this can possibly constitute something worthy of, in your terms, "punishment". Last time I checked, even New Labour hadn't managed to make "winding up an officer" a criminal offence yet, nor should it be.
I'm continually irritated by the notion that it is acceptable for something to be legal if done to another person, but illegal if done to a police officer. There's absolutely no reason for this. Police officers should get the exact same protection under the law that everyone else gets; no more, no less. Anything else only serves to encourage the police to turn their noses up at the rules the rest of us live by, and encourage the public to resent the police, which is not in anyone's best interest.
On unmarked police cars, I am always amused by the ones here in Vancouver. They take off the police markings, but leave on the gigantic black metal bull bars that no civilian car ever has. It's kind of hard to miss.
Unless, of course, it's a *really* cunning double blind: those are the unmarked cars they want you to see. In which case, hats off, lads. Good one.
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 10:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
We've missed the point, again.
The article and the comments above seem to indicate that we have a problem caused by something that has gone wrong with the law enforcement industry.
WRONG!
What has been described is NOT a problem. It is just another way in which the population will be made docile. The ban on smoking in public was the first. Now the ban on photography (whatever excuses they trot out) is next, and there will be a whole string of them until we the population get the message: Shut up, and do as you are told or else!
How on earth can you run a Police State if you don't have a docile population who readily submit?
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 10:04 GMT David Harris
Just to make it clear...
... if you follow the link to the second story, the member of the public complained, the matter was looked into and PC made to apologise. So perhaps not quite as bad as you might assume. On the other hand in the first one the police were unrepentant.
It is unacceptable for people to be harassed like this, the best safeguard is probably to know your rights and stand up for them... on the other hand with so many police heavily armed and able, one suspects, to get away with pretty much anything, up to and including killing people - that takes a bit of courage.
"To no man will we sell, to man deny, justice"
David
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 10:11 GMT NT
Two Sides to Every Story
I submit these comments knowing full well that it's the deepest and most offensive heresy here on El Reg to extend the Evil Big-Brother Oppressive Police the benefit of any sort of doubt under any circumstances. Since everybody knows they're out to take all the power they can get, and there's not a single solitary one of them that does the job because they genuinely believe they can help protect their society, I accept that I may be branded a government shill and exiled into the darkest reaches. Or maybe they won't even clear moderation, I don't know.
(In the hope of mitigating my crime just a little, I'm also going to offer the fact that, while I wouldn't go so far as to flatter myself with the label of 'photographer', I do own a camera. If it comes down to a conflict between the rights of an innocent photographer to take pics and attempts by the police to stop him/her, I'm on the snapper's side every time. I would, however, be interested to know exactly how frequent these incidents are, and how often they're down to the officer's ignorance - admittedly an issue in itself - rather than sinister political intent.)
Still, all that said...
It's been mentioned that officers are increasingly recording everything they do with uniform-mounted cameras. It's been pointed out that they use cameras at demonstrations to 'wind up protesters'.
It might be worth consideration - and I'm not suggesting that you have to accept it, but just be open-minded enough to consider it - that given the increasing tendency of modern Britain to complain vociferously at absolutely every perceived slight or inconvenience, it could be that the increasing use of cameras by the police is nothing more than a defence mechanism. Police officers have always used their pocket books to record conversations and details of encounters. Recording the entire encounter is simply an extension of the same principle. The advantages are that notation errors are eliminated; the officer can spend more time actually dealing with people rather than peering at a notebook; and the officer has a defence against the inevitable allegation that s/he fabricated or deliberately mis-recorded the evidence in the notebook. It's one thing to claim that an officer made up lies and wrote them in a PNB, but it's another to suggest that the police devoted time and resources to fabricating video evidence.
As far as protests go, I'm not sure which 'side' first came up with the notion of recording everything in order to keep the others in line (or, for preference, to record them stepping out of line), so I don't know whose 'fault' I'd say it all is. Who started it. But it's absolutely for sure that in any given demo there are similar numbers of lenses pointing in both directions. And anyone who implies that protesters don't wield those cameras with every intention of trying to intimidate and antagonise the officers involved has quite clearly never been to a protest. Isn't the purpose of the cameras to record police misbehaviour? And what if there isn't any misbehaviour? Isn't that pretty frustrating? Still, when officers know they're being recorded, but know they don't have any way of ensuring the evidential continuity of any tape, it makes sense for them to record events themselves so they can provide their own evidence if need be.
Yes, there are a lot of problems in law and privacy and surveillance at the moment. Most of the problems of this sort (photographers being stopped) stem from the fact that the police are constantly being bombarded with new laws, new initiatives, new operations, all in the name of protecting the people from terrorism and the like. Most officers are simply doing a job; a job they probably used to believe in when they started out, poor saps. Many of them, as much as we might expect them to be perfect machines, have trouble interpreting the masses of new procedures that're being laid on them. And yes, there *are* some arseholes who simply love the power kick of being in a uniform - but the question is whether you're going to assume that they're *all* like that based on anecdotal evidence or the odd personal experience.
And yes, too, there are similar arseholes in authority (I'm looking at you, ACPO), who seem dedicated to acquiring extensive powers that wouldn't be needed or justifiable if they'd only manage basic policing properly.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that, by and large, coppers are people. They don't really want the hassle - they certainly don't want the paperwork - of arresting someone for taking bloody pictures. My advice would be to read up on the law from these links that're being posted, and have it to hand in case you ever end up in this situation. But before you trot it out and chuck it in the officer's face like some supercilious armchair lawyer, why not just *talk* to them? Why not have a chat, and see what was on their mind that led them to speak to you in the first place? And if they persist, then by all means reach for your law.
Obviously, if you prefer to prejudge the lot of them and assume they're all dastardly Orwellian automatons, then go to it; but don't expect the most productive or satisfactory outcome if you charge in guns blazing right from the off.
Mine's the one with 'Pariah' written on the back...
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 10:15 GMT Stewart Haywood
I wonder ....
If the Black Police Association has white members such that the ratio of black to white members of the association is the same as the ratio of black to white members of the police force. If not, why not?. Also, is it really wise for the police to allow officers to join clubs that use skin colour to define themselves?. I would think that it must make it more difficult to justify officers like PC Farooq roughing up white people for objecting to him breaking the law.
Dead bird because he looks as though he has been Farooqed.
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 11:15 GMT Slarti
Whoa there
Did you really think about this or did you just take the police version at face value:
"Of course, there can be legitimate reasons for opposing the use of cameras. In talking to El Reg about the law on photography, several Police Forces made the fair comment that there were individuals who had learnt how to use cameras at demonstrations as a means to wind individual officers up."
I think you're probably referring to FitWatch (http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/). The ironic thing is this is a recently developed tactic to counter the *police* use of over-the-top surveillance as a form of harassment. The FIT (Forward Intelligence Teams) are a group of usually 3-4 cops with long-lense cameras, video cameras, etc. Sometimes they film/photograph everyone coming in or out of an event, often just a meeting to talk about an event. Sometimes they follow an individual around on a demonstration, including a simple A-B march. They specialise in learning information about known activists and then telling those people things about themselves (including their private lives, employment, etc.) just to intimidate. To have four people, all with police powers following you (personally) all day on a march and then following you to the pub afterwards, often looking for opportunities to hassle/search/arrest you and on occasion assaulting people *is* clearly harassment.
It turns out, when people started pointing cameras back at them, that these same FIT teams are about the most camera shy cops you'll ever find! So some people (disclosure: I've been on demos, I've been hassled by the FIT but not as badly as some folk, I've not (yet) taken part in a FITwatch type action although I have pointed a camera back at them on occasion) decided to push back a bit by making it more difficult for them to hassle people. This is partly by turning cameras back at them and partly by using banners, or their own bodies, to block the view of the FIT cameras. Frankly, people should be able to go to a meeting to discuss, say, the arms trade, without ending up on a police database just for doing that.
"Undoubtedly, this happens – although as with any such abuse, perhaps it should be punished appropriately when it does, rather than used as a reason for clamping down more widely."
How exactly is it abuse? The police who are policing a demo are public officials acting in a public capacity. As members of the public one of the few ways we can hold them to account is by photographing them. This could be when they are harassing other people, arresting people, stopping and searching people, etc. It also can act as a deterrent - if they know all arrests will be photographed you tend to get fewer people injured during arrest, for example. I've discussed the issue with senior police officers (Inspector up to Chief Super) at liaison meetings about future demos and they have always said they we are perfectly within our rights to take photos of the cops at demos. (There is also an issue that many of the activists in such situations are also there in a journalistic capacity for news sites such as IndyMedia.)
Intrusive photography can be used as one tool in harassing someone, as described above by the FIT for example. However, there are three key differences between activists photographing the cops and the FIT tactics. One is that we don't follow them to the pub afterwards, talk loudly about their private lives (using information gleaned from confidential sources), etc. Another is that we don't gang up on them four on one and don't have powers to repeatedly search them, arrest them, etc. But the main one is that we are private citizens exercising our rights to freedom of speech and assembly - they are public officials, on duty and acting as such and we don't go beyond that into their private lives.
I would also add that it is a well-established principle of law in relation to issues like provocation, etc. that the police are expected, through their training, experience and public role, to be thicker-skinned than members of the public. Thus, if the police are accepting that photographing police officers winds them up then why are they going so over the top in winding up members of the public when they are supposed to be (and claim to be) trying to keep things calm and "facilitate lawful protest".
I'd also add that while there is no general law preventing the police taking photographs of people on the street (and more than there is of us taking photographs of them) there is no law requiring you to allow them to take your photograph, even during a stop and search. Thus putting your hand (or a banner or placard) in front of your face is perfectly legal. The only situation the police can force you to have your photo taken is once they've arrested you.
"Part of the problem, as far as authority is concerned, is the sheer scale of public photography."
Which still pales by comparison with the CCTV coverage! But anyway, why is this a problem? I could understand official concern about covert surveillance/potential terrorist reccies on ultra-sensitive sites (any site open to the public or visible on google earth is *not* in this category due to the usual horse/stable door reasoning). I can understand concerns over long-lense photography into peoples private house/gardens/etc. I can understand concerns over photographs of children without parental consent (another thing the FIT do a lot). But people taking pictures on public streets as a concern in and of itself? Or taking pictures of public officials acting in that capacity? Why?
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 11:15 GMT Robert McMains, Jr.
Use a digital camera? make sure you have a spare memory card handy
.
... then if an 'iffy' situation occurs, and you fell it safer to delete, delete.
Swap to a different card for subsequent pictures and use something like the free photorec to get the images back when you get home. trivial to do.
Then you have the images to hand when making a complaint.
Just a thought outside the box from the western US.
I'm disabled and use my cam a lot for 'writing down' prices and products, things I want to save for, etc. and used to get hassled a lot in stores- especially the ones with lots of CCTV monitors...
Until I had some inch-square 'handicapped access' logo stickers printed and slapped a couple on my camera. No hassles since!
Mine's the one with blue & white stickers and 4 Secure Digital pockets in the lining...
-
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 13:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
On the face of it...
"More recently, Police and Parking Enforcement Officers have begun to be kitted out with mobile cameras – so they can record every tiny detail of interaction with the public."
...sounds quite sensible, given the attitudes so common in the Police these days - especially amongst PCSOs.
It should be pointed out however that this "I think I'll just make up the law as I go along" trend indicates either that the individual concerned is completely unsuitable for employment in any branch of the Police - Hasn't been trained correctly - OR is fundamentally dishonest. - OR simply lacking the intellectual capacity to work in law enforcement?
Leaving that aside - even though it is in fact a serious issue that urgently requires addressing - Police officers with built in video/audio recording appears to be a very good idea, given the tendencies that have become increasingly evident.
BUT, just how tamper-proof are those records?
Can the recording system be selectively disabled?
What precautions are in place to prevent post-editing?
It's all too easy to envisage situations, particularly where an officer proposes to do something - and let's not beat about the bush here - unlawful, and switches off the recording system.
Or realises that they have overstepped the line and subsequently tampers with the recording.
IF there aren't watertight precautions in place to prevent this then there is NO protection for the public in this system. It becomes merely a selectively applied system to gather evidence to back up the Police.
Yet another misapplication of technology by an increasingly authoritarian Government and its Praetorians.
As far as the teachers are concerned, I'd have thought the idea of CCTV in classrooms would be a godsend. An excellent defence against unfounded accusations. Proof that they ARE doing their job properly.
After all, as their Marxist bosses are so fond of saying - "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" - right?
Or could it be more a case of "Some are more equal than others"?
I really do despair for this country. We've been taken over by a bunch of power crazed authoritarians who seem unable to see any way forward other than an unholy mixture of relentless selectively applied legislation and manipulating reality to suit themselves - all under the banner of democratic freedom and security.
What they are actually doing is CREATING a situation where they will, eventually, NEED the authoritarian infrastructure they are busily creating, to preserve their own skins.
The lesson of history is that Authoritarian States do not survive in the long term. Ultimately they either collapse or, are torn down.
The danger is that such events are frequently violent.
I wonder if anyone in government can see the likely outcome if this course continues though?
Me, I'd quite like to live my remaining years peacefully AND with a reasonable degree of freedom...
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 13:33 GMT Jared Earle
Oh, the irony
The week after the Tube terror attacks, the Police were asking anyone with a camera if they had any photos. I was approached by this chap because I was carrying a nice-looking camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaredearle/37183600/
He was handing out "Did you see anything?" flyers.
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 13:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
How about this
IMHO, being in a public place does not remove your right to privacy. It's committing crimes that does.
1. We remove the stop and search power. There should be specific suspicion of a crime to stop and search because people have the right to privacy, and only the committing of crimes removes that right. Specific reasons why specific person is searchable at that specific time and all 3 elements can be justified if challenged. Like it was before. IMHO terrorism threat is WAY overstated and we're more at risk flying on holiday to the Canary islands, or crossing the road. Blair law, remove it.
2. People are entitled to some privacy even in public places. Police don't like cameras in their faces, nor do protestors. Don't video unless there is crime. Sans crime no video. A social measure to reduce the gap between police and public. At peaceful protests why are the police even there? Blair chose Blunket, he had no concept of privacy because he was blind. But most people aren't broken and have privacy.
3. Likewise the police right to force removal of a disguise. They can demand you remove any disguise if they think the purpose is to conceal identity. I have the right to conceal my identity from you. In the absense of crime it's none of your fooking business. And I'm saying that as an AC, because I'm smart enough to know not to be critical of ACPO and Wacky Jacqui as anything *but* AC. Pre-Blair law, made much worse by CCTV and cameras, remove it.
4. Section 42 Criminal Justice and Police act, the 'Harrassment' one. Such a fluffy law that, IMHO, I am entitled to protest and your right to be free from 'harrassment' does not trump that. I can't disturb the peace, I can't do property damage or obstruct, but these are all existing laws. The controls on these 'Harrasment' law are meaningless, the person who wants to use this law to suppress protest can simply claim it causes them 'alarm' or 'distress', even if unplausible. The only meaningful control is the 'dwelling' rule, and you see officers talk about 'residents' of office buildings, or neighbouring buildings to try to bypass that one. Blair law, existing laws covered the real problem here much better, remove it.
5. Power to demand name and address of anti-social people. No, if you're not arresting them they're entitled to privacy. 'Anti-social' behaviour is so vague/subjective as to be meaningless, the right to demand identity comes from breaking the law. Sticking police camera in my face is anti-social, but I don't get to demand the officers home address. Blair law remove it.
6. RIPA, I am entitled to privacy, crimes are what remove that right. In thr absence of crime my stuff is none of your fooking business. Independant judicial check always. Like the stop-search where the officer names a senior officer who gave him instruction to stop, getting approval from a senior officer is a meaningless 'buddy' check. Blair law remove it.
7. New CCTV law, if you accept that simply being in public doesn't strip all your right to privacy, then privacy right applies. Can't keep CCTV for longer than necessary, for unnecessary purposes or cross link it to other systems more than necessary. Can't be intrusive even if the camera is in a public place. So ANPR should not record number plates that are not flagged as crimes, and that info should not be made available to others or cross links to other systems because it's none of your fooking business if I am not committing a crime.
8. Initimidation of people connected with animal research organisation. Yeh we know Blair got a big wadge of lobby money. But everyone is equal and they're not entitled to special protection just because they cut up cute bunnies.
9. Go through all the Blair laws, once the Tories are in power, each Blair law gets removed by default unless it is reapproved through Parliament. 42 days detention without charge? No, it makes 28 days seem normal, 28 days detention? No it makes 14 seem normal. Quit arresting people if you don't have enough evidence to charge them. Quit making terrorism an excuse.
10. Central database of all communications. Fook off. bypassing Parliament, treason, fook off. Nobody trusts 'lethal pot Brown', or hysterical housewife Jacqui not to abuse that info. The link between spooks and police means that spooks can selectively mine such a database to paint a false picture, fook off.
11. Anti-social is meaningless grouping word designed to tie strong problems to weak ones (e.g. disturbing the peace with 'fear of stuff'). A Blair trick, remove any reference to anti-social behaviour and put in the actual real solid thing that it is intented to fix.
12. 'Voluntary' Curfew, is an abuse of police power. The officer concerned does not have the right to remove peoples right to be outside at night. I'm pretty sure I can find a law he's broken, he should be prosecuted.
13. SOCA, fook off, people have the right to protest, ergo the right to refuse their right to protest is anti-democractic and they don't need 'permission'.
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 18:17 GMT Christian Gerzner
Re: Two Sides To Every Story
Here's another thought to those carefully made by NT.
I'm an amateur photographer, law abiding, conservative, elderly. I used to photograph underwater only but SCUBA is for the very healthy which I am not any more and so I have taken to land photography (a considerable step in itself).
I have, since December, a significantly sophisticated SLR camera that is, increasingly, getting a supply of sophisticated lenses and I'm fairly proud of it, but still learning this above water lark.
Back in February I met with some friends in the local Pub's beer garden (this is just north of Sydney Australia) and decided to take the system because I wanted to show off the latest two lenses, and so forth and so on.
There was a family, probably grandparents, parents and two children at the immediately adjacent table. The daughter, at a guess around five years old, got seriously involved in some kind of computer game and so I snapped a few pictures of her, she was very cute in the way she screwed up her nose and eyes in concentration. I did this in full view of everyone, this was not a long lens, and eventually asked the parents for their e-mail address to send the pictures to them, which I did. I also asked them whether they'd like the raw files and having explained that to them, they said yes.
A little later two of my friends commented that I should have asked permission first because the taking of pictures of people without their permission is illegal. I have yet, in fact, to bother to find out whether that is the case, but what happens if I take a Paparazzi picture with a 300mm lens, even a 150mm lens, and the "model" doesn't even know that it's been taken? Yes, we have Paparazzi here as elsewhere.
If that law is correct, which I doubt, then the law is an ass - again.
It follows therefore that a long lens, from further away than, say, the cops in that undercover BMW (a BMW? In England?!!!) would ever know of, would be perfectly benign to the photographer - never to be harassed by the local constabulary.
That would sort out phone cameras though although unfortunately, unless I miss my guess, those are going to become increasingly serious problems as the technology gets more sophisticated.
Lapel button cameras anyone? Oh, I forgot, no one wears suits any more.
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 18:21 GMT Mark
Scale of photogrtaphy
"Part of the problem, as far as authority is concerned, is the sheer scale of public photography."
Surely that's a GOOD thing. We could frame things so that you can't see WHY the PC is beating the crap out of that protester but if there are LOTS of pictures from different angles, they are much more likely to show the truth.
Then again, it makes it harder to defend malpurposed actions with that defense when there's lots of them, and you can't arrest EVERYONE with a camera when there are hundreds. But since these are only advantageous when the photo record will record actions that are not appropriate, they should not be *wanted*.
Black helicopter because it looks like the PC Plots are afraid of a public conspiracy...
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 18:21 GMT Mark
re: Politics by name has nothing to do with it.
Well, based on results, we didn't HAVE ID cards, 300 new laws a year, parliamentary privilege, terrorist acts (as opposed to acts of terrorism), 40million losses of records, etc. EXCEPT under this government.
If all governments would have done this, then we should dismantle the power of governments. But since you don't mention that, I'll just have to expose you as a NuLabour supporter trying to make out they aren't so bad beacuse there are worse out there. You forgot something: they aren't in charge for the ones you have proof and for those with no proof, prove it.
-
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 21:34 GMT Dave
Silly article
"Any argument that this might be a little intrusive is met with the bland old reassurance that “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear”.
The only people I ever hear say that is the tinfoil hat brigade. If anything police toting video cameras is as much protection for you as it is for them, it keeps them honest. If the camera is turned off and when its turned back on you have a black eye then people will ask why?
" what these stories have in common is an emerging double standard: “They” may photograph us when, where and how they like, but we should think twice about photographing them."
That's just nonsense. If you take a photo of a police officer/car breaking the law that is EVIDENCE of an offence. A police officer who attempts to conceal, alter, damage or destroy evidence is in very very deep water. They may well try and bully you but the fact is you are acting lawfully.
"Why are you taking photographs of a police vehicle sir"
"I am recording evidence of the driver committing an offence which I intend to report."
Is a photo of a police car of use to terrorists? Hardly.
-
Sunday 24th August 2008 21:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
The Olympic closing ceremony, UK Contribution.
The London bus in the Beijing closing ceremony representing Britain, it should have opened up in the top, and a bunch of 60 CCTV camera should have popped out and photographed every Chinese man, 'for the prevention of terrorism'.
Then a bunch of rozzers should have popped out and grabbed any arbitrary Chinaman dragged him in for 42 day detention. For the 'good of society.
The bus windows should have had curtains, and scared housewives popping their head round the curtain in fear of the anti-social chinese outside.
Yeh, that would should Britain as it is today. Thank U NuLabour for giving Britain an identity!
-
Monday 25th August 2008 07:15 GMT Wokstation
Well boo-hiss, reg.
Understandably? Harrassing police officers?
It's not against the law to piss off a copper. As a photographer I am aghast that The Reg chose to pacify the police commentors by giving that statement any credibility.
They photograph us - if they've nothing to fear, they shouldn't worry about us returning the favour.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 07:18 GMT David
Smile, please!
Sounds like the police have been.......er.......shall we say a tad "over-zealous" again! I believe UK law states that it is still perfectly legal to take photographs of anything and anyone on, or from, public land or highways, with the exception of certain "secret" government buildings/installations, although I`m not sure how you`re supposed to know which buildings are classified as such, unless they have a big sign on them saying so!
I used to carry a camera constantly in a previous job and well remember having a verbal (and almost physical!) tussle with a military gentleman in charge of some soldiers who had stopped their vehicles to assist at the scene of an accident that I had photographed. He actually wanted to confiscate my film in case I had photographed some of his men. I prevailed but it was an awkward moment. The military vehicles seemed to have no markings, so maybe that`s why he got a tad touchy. As I told him at the time, what I was doing was completely legal and he would have probably committed an offence had he taken things further.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 07:20 GMT James Woods
little off topic
But this is like the police in the united states that are being armed with machine guns. From what I can remember the US was not founded on the notion that the government would have the ability to overpower it's citizens. Im all for the police having the ability to take control of a situation and defend themselves, but as we have seen with situations like waco and what-not what's to stop police when they over-step their duty and create provocations. What are the good citizens going to do in our cities when the cops have automatic weapons and the citizens are not allowed to protect themselves with automatic weapons? Im an NRA Life member and do see the importance of keeping automatic weapons off the street, however that goes for everyone. The only ones that should have the automatic weapons are our military and they should only be able to use them in a time of war. Hearing police stories like this where the police are able to do whatever they want "running redlights to get doughnuts" or speeding just to speed are all signs that we are living in societies of privilege and censorship.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 07:20 GMT andreas koch
genuine question to the readers:
I keep reading the terms 'police officer', 'pcso', and 'parking enforcement officer' in close proximity and it leaves somehow the taste as if they where all the same. Which to my understanding is not so: the 'parking enforcement officer' is a meter maid and the 'pcso' is a playground supervisor. Or am I getting that wrong, (my usual excuse is being kraut and only living here for 2 years...) and these people have actual executive powers?
But then, wasn't there a story about some of these pcso's letting a boy drown in a pond, because they weren't allowed to intervene before a proper pc was there.
someone enlighten me on this, I am genuinely getting lost here.
"Zad Leica in der pocket of der coat iz not míne, herr polizist!
-
Monday 25th August 2008 07:20 GMT A Lewis
@ Christian Gerzner
Your friends are misinformed. It is quite legal to take photographs of people, with or without their permission, in a public place in NSW (with certain limitations, mainly to do with offensive behaviour, nuisance, etc. - see the informative post at http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Your_right_to_take_photographs for more details.) It could be argued that the beer garden was private property, but this only means you must respect the owner's wishes, i.e. if the publican asked you to desist, you should. The subjects of the photographs have no expectation of privacy in such a place, and so no legal right to object. Though should they do so, politeness might dictate you comply with their request. From what you described, though, everyone (including the law) was happy with the situation.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 07:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
really
what kind of retard would use a big obvious camera for terrorism anyway? Just get one of those mini video camera things.
Aside - the police are universally wankers - it goes with the terretory. Doesn't mean I wouldn't want the patrolling the streets, investigating crime, locating criminals, I just don't want them having the power to make the law up, lie, and having a bit too much power in parliment or the media.
However I dislike special police types even more, give them a while they'll be like paramilitary forces in south america, well beyond the law whilst the police are starved of resources.
Funny world.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 08:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
X number of CCTV
This will probably get lost in the noise but it's worth pointing out that the figure for how many CCTV cameras there are in Britain also includes the number of in store and other private premises security cameras. I suspect if you take out these cameras then the number of the remaining public body cameras will be far less spectacular and hardly newsworthy.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 08:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Dave and silly stats
Dave i think you have misread the article.
It and others stories like that show that when you snap a plod breaking the law, their use the anti-terrorism laws to stop you.
Also re: silly stats complaining that the 4.2 figure comes from extrapolation... that is what stats are for most national level figure. It is simply not possible to count all the cctv camera. Just like it is impossible to count TV viewing figures, so take a representative sample and extrapolate.
The london street like Oxford Street (v. busy shopping street) was likely used as it has many cameras so any figure derived would be a potential maximum possible count.
If you dont understand stats then you should not criticise them.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 08:23 GMT Simpson
smile
Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety.
Noah Webster
When the police fear the general public to the degree of fearing photos, something is terribly wrong.
Me
A few quotes from some other famous People, on this side of Atlantis.
Thomas Jefferson almost said: "No man shall ever be debarred the use of cameras. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear cameras is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Jefferson made himself even more explicit when he almost said: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not .warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take cameras.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the pictures of patriots and tyrants."
James Madison almost said, "The Constitution preserves the advantage of having cameras which (insert your country here) possess over the people of almost every other nation ... [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with cameras."
Alexander Hamilton almost said, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of cameras which is paramount to all forms of positive government."
Richard Henry Lee almost said, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess cameras and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Tench Coxe almost said: "The gov has no power to un-camera the people. Their bigger cameras, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of (insert your country here).... The unlimited power of the camera is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Noah Webster almost said, "The supreme power in (inset your country here) cannot enforce unjust laws by the camera, because the whole body of the people have cameras, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular cameras."
George Washington almost said: "cameras stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the (insert your country here) people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."
-
Monday 25th August 2008 09:20 GMT steogede
Clear as mud
>> Of course, there can be legitimate reasons for opposing the use of cameras. In
>> talking to El Reg about the law on photography, several Police Forces made the
>> fair comment that there were individuals who had learnt how to use cameras at
>> demonstrations as a means to wind individual officers up.
El Reg, have you been purposefully uninformative - are you trying to be sarcastic?
Ignoring the fact that it is not an offence to "wind up an officer" - can you clarify what the fuck they are accused of doing to the said officers. I will rephrase the quote:
"Of course, there can be legitimate reasons for opposing the use of hands. In talking to El Reg about the law on photography, several Police Forces made the fair comment that there were individuals who had learnt how to use hands whilst at demonstrations as a means to wind individual officers up."
BTW, with regard to the one about destruction of evidence, I am going have to remember that one. If any officer reckons my camera has been used illegally I will demand to keep the photos as evidence of any crime I may or may not have committed.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 09:23 GMT John Murgatroyd
Cams,
"s there any mobile phone that allow uploading photos immediately to web/your home server"
My orange phone allows the sending of photos to my online photo album, automatically.
I took a photo of a wheel clamper doing his work. I got informed that taking the picture of him was a breach of his rights, and that if I didn't stop he'd "kick the shit out of me".
-
Monday 25th August 2008 12:12 GMT Dave
@ jeremy
No I got that just fine, but I'll reiterate that that law is not applicable and what the plod is probably trying to do is convince you to delete the picture without doing anything more. If the article was about a new law banning photographs of the police that'd be news, but its not, its a couple of isolated examples, one of which isn't even reported correctly and some very ropey statistics.
"Delete that picture of my police car parked on yellow lines outside the chippy, it is illegal under anti-terrorism legislation"
"No, it is evidence of an offence which I intend to report"
"I'll seize your camera then"
"Okay, I'd like a receipt with the reason and legislation its being seized under, your name number and station and the address of who I can write to to get it back"
If the pictures are evidence of your "offence" then they're in no danger of being deleted.
Can you explain your actions as being lawful? Yes.
Can the police officer inconvenience you while you do it? Yes.
But then, if you care THAT much about "catching them out" you shouldn't mind, should you?
If on the other hand you're doing it to be smart like W above why should you complain if you have no reasonable excuse and you have to explain yourself... in a police station?
@ NT thank you for your very sensible comments. I agree there are privacy problems at the moment. There are lots of where photographers' activities might arouse the interest of the police. For example if there was someone outside your childrens school playground snapping away wouldn't you want to know why?
-
Monday 25th August 2008 12:12 GMT NT
@ andreas koch
Because you've said you've asked a 'geuine question', I'll answer it as such. I suspect we both know it was pretty much rhetorical, though.
"I keep reading the terms 'police officer', 'pcso', and 'parking enforcement officer' in close proximity and it leaves somehow the taste as if they where all the same. Which to my understanding is not so: the 'parking enforcement officer' is a meter maid and the 'pcso' is a playground supervisor. Or am I getting that wrong, (my usual excuse is being kraut and only living here for 2 years...) and these people have actual executive powers?"
A police officer in the UK is someone who is sworn into the police force (or 'service' as it's recently been rebranded) and possess a warrant. Of the three you've mentioned, the police officer has the widest range of powers. Disregarding for a moment the anti-authority slant of El Reg, it's generally accepted in democratic countries that a police officer needs a range of powers in order to carry out their duties (although I'm not making any comment here on the right or wrong of any specific power). Perhaps the most universal of those powers from country to country is that the police officer can, if they suspect someone of an offence and need to investigate it, detain a person and take them into custody while enquiries are made (this assumes the offence carries a power of arrest). Different countries will equip their officers with different powers.
A PCSO is a Police Community Support Officer. They are employees of the police force and have a limited range of powers intended to enable them to deal, usually via fixed penalty tickets or reports, with nuisance and low-grade criminality. I hesitate to use the term 'anti-social behaviour' since, as commented elsewhere, it is worryingly vague. (For example, I don't go out to pubs and clubs very often because I don't really like them: therefore in the strictest sense I am guilty of anti-social behaviour.)
In most force areas a PCSO also has powers of detention, however these are (or should be) strictly time-limited and do not allow the PCSO to remove a person to another place. They are restricted to holding a person until a police officer arrives. This power is widely condemned by liberty activists, although in truth it's not dissimilar to the common public conception of the "citizen's arrest", and most people have always been quite happy to accept that idea. But put the same power (in fact, a more limited version of the same power) in the hands of someone who is, in theory at least, trained and accountable, and somehow that person becomes an evil agent of a totalitarian regime.
As for parking attendants, well, the setup can vary wildly from area to area. For example, where I live there are no more traffic wardens. Parking offences are dealt with by either police officers (who rarely have time, unless you're relying on them not having time), or council parking officers whose power derives from the local authority (and it's worth bearing in mind that it's the local authority, not the police, who decide on speed limits, parking restrictions, double-yellow lines, and so on).
"But then, wasn't there a story about some of these pcso's letting a boy drown in a pond, because they weren't allowed to intervene before a proper pc was there."
Yes, there was a story, and no, that's not quite the case. The PCSOs would have been perfectly entitled to jump in and save the boy - it certainly wasn't a matter of 'not being allowed'. These two didn't do that, and the question was whether they were right to act in the way that they did in the circumstances. The police claim the PCSOs were justified in waiting for assistance; the parents say they weren't. I, however, wasn't there and, to my knowledge, neither were the various tabloids rags who rushed to judgement one way or the other, or the readers who decided their opinion based on what their favoured rag told them to think.
In any event, the case you've highlighted is not a question of PCSOs' powers - it's a question of the decisions, right or wrong, made by two individual PCSOs in one particular incident.
"I am genuinely getting lost here."
No, I don't think you're lost at all. I think you know exactly what your opinion is.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 15:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
police abuse
only a few days ago i was sat in a police station while a police officer sat opposite me flicking through a police guidance booklet saying to me 'there must be something i can arrest you for in here, we have all kinds of powers'
the worst part? the reason i was there was to report someone assaulting me, apparently the officer (who refused to give his name) didn't give a crap about that because 'it was my own fault for going to a peaceful protest' - after his superiors kicked him in to line he finally stopped trying to find an excuse to arrest me for the crime of free speech and started investigating the assault, but hardly in an unbiased and fair manner
yes, i shall shortly be finding out just how independent the IPC is!
-
Monday 25th August 2008 17:46 GMT Moz
police abuse?
<< only a few days ago i was sat in a police station while a police officer sat opposite me flicking through a police guidance booklet saying to me 'there must be something i can arrest you for in here, we have all kinds of powers' >>
Nah, sorry, I don't buy that. I'm first to agree the police aren't above abusing their powers, you don't have to persuade me of that, but I reckon the worst of them would have more about him than that. I think there's probably more to this story.
Meh. This is the worth of anecdotal evidence, though... (reg writers take note.) Maybe it did happen just like you say, if so I only hope you find the IPCC easier to convince.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 18:37 GMT John Murgatroyd
problem ?
I don't se any problem. If they stop and/or search you they are supposed to supply you with a record of said event, complete with name etc. If they do not so so automatically you need to ask them for one. Hardly a problem, it takes nearly a half hour to fill in...
"What paperwork do I get after a stop and a stop and search?
You should receive a written record of the stop or stop and search at the time of the event, which sets out the reason for the stop or stop and search. If you want to complain either about being stopped or searched or the way it was carried out, this record will help identify the circumstances.
Supervisors at the police station also keep a copy of this record. They use it to monitor the use of stop and stop and search powers and check for any inappropriate use. The police service must also make arrangements for community representatives to look at their stop and search records.
Police may use the record at a later date to contact you about anything that may have happened in that area around the time you were stopped.
You will normally be given a record at the time of the event. However, because of operational demands (public order situations, large public events of if an officers is called to an emergency) you may be told where to collect the record later. A record must be made available for up to 12 months. You can also be given a receipt rather than a full record as the time"
http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm
-
Monday 25th August 2008 18:37 GMT Eduard Coli
Who watches the watchers
The old wheeze "if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" is fatally flawed. It implies trust where there is none and where there should be none. While individual police may have the best intentions by no means can the entire police force be trusted. It has been proven time and again that people by themselves may be moral and ethical these same people are capable of doing things they would never do when in a group.
-
Monday 25th August 2008 22:23 GMT Wokstation
@Jeremey
"For example if there was someone outside your childrens school playground snapping away wouldn't you want to know why?"
You've missed the point about being in public entirely. Kids on a school field are not considered to be in a public space, instead, they're on private property - a school. As such, you cannot take their photographs without permission of the landowner.
-
Tuesday 26th August 2008 09:04 GMT NT
@ kain preacher
"There is a guy in NYC that goes around filming cops and other public officials that park illegal. Sound like if he were to do this in the UK he would be done in."
No, I don't think he would. First, let's bear in mind the number of times people have actually been stopped for taking pictures in the UK. El Reg here would seem to imply that it's happening every two minutes on every street corner. I suspect that, if we assessed it objectively, we might find it's not all that common after all.
Then let's consider the percentage of times that it's been down to a mistake or misjudgement on the part of the officer involved, rather than law or a force policy. I suspect that'll cut the number of truly sinister occasions down even further (unless you automatically categorise an officer's error of judgement as sinister in itself).
And then it's worth paying a visit to YouTube and doing a search on 'UK police' or similar. You'll find a truly massive number of clips, and not all of them present the police in an entirely complimentary light. If the UK police were really that bothered about people videoing or photographing them, don't you imagine they'd be taking steps to suppress such content?
As a matter of fact there are quite a few people who make it their life's crusade to follow police officers around and try to catch them doing something a bit dodgy. It could be argued that these are valiant heroes working tirelessly to keep our police forces honest. Or, it could equally be argued that they're small-minded busybodies fuelled by paranoia or sour grapes (how many of them, I wonder, only embark on their civic-minded campaign after getting ticketed for something?). I suppose it depends on point of view. But whatever your perspective, these people are certainly not doing anything illegal, and to tell you the truth I'm quite dubious about the implication that police officers would accuse them of unlawful activity as a matter of course.
-
Tuesday 26th August 2008 09:04 GMT John Bayly
Re: AC @Ted Treen
Um, maybe because the total size of the government is smaller. Large central government plus lots of small local authorities (Thatcherite) or, a small (actually still large) central government and lots of bloated local authorities (Nu-Lab).
Who's the dribbling idiot?
If you want to criticise, use your name.
-
Tuesday 26th August 2008 09:04 GMT Mark
@Wokstation
a) you're wrong: you are standing on public property and the school's public access means they are not private property.
b) you missed: Jeremy was WRONG. Why should you care if someone is taking photos? This should not be a criminal act. Or do school photographers (the ones making the yearbook photos for school) paedos?
Hell, you don't seem to care that they are watched 300 times a day by CCTV and you NEVER see the person behind the monitor.
-
Tuesday 26th August 2008 09:21 GMT Jason Clery
responses
"There are lots of where photographers' activities might arouse the interest of the police. For example if there was someone outside your childrens school playground snapping away wouldn't you want to know why?"
You have no right to. What you are implying is the whole paedophile angle. Most kiddy fiddlers are parents, family, or close family friends.
The photographer could have seen something that made a nice shot, maybe a "children at play" or "chavs in training" or such like.
"Kids on a school field are not considered to be in a public space, instead, they're on private property - a school. As such, you cannot take their photographs without permission of the landowner."
Only if the photographer is on the land itself, not on the street.
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
"Photographing Buildings, Football Grounds and Interiors
Property owners have no right to stop people taking photos of their buildings, so long as the photographer is standing in a public place (e.g. the road outside)."
"UK laws are fairly vague when it comes to defining what constitutes an invasion of privacy, but while street shots should cause no problem, you might get in hot water if you're strapping on colossal telephoto lens and zooming in on folks stripping off in their bathrooms - even if you are snapping from a public place.
The key seems to be whether the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy - a statement that seems vague enough to keep a team of lawyers gainfully employed for some time"
So unless there is signage up stating a local organdance forbids photos, there is no law against it.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
