http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12..._police_rules/

P

On Dec 1, 4:07*pm, "Paulston" wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12..._police_rules/

P

"The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking
photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under
section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking
photographs unless they are in an area where photography is prevented
by other legislation.

If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as
part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of
the Terrorism Act 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Film and
memory cards may be seized as part of the search, but officers do not
have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images
may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras
or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to
examine them.

Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found
and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination.
The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the
device on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or
damaged."

"A spokesperson told us that "there is no legal requirement for
individuals to have a license or to seek permission from the Council
in respect of taking photographs on the street. However, if
individuals were taking photos in Parliament Square, and did so
without checking with us first, we would probably ask them to move
on".

When we asked why, in the absence of a legal basis for doing this, the
Council would do this, their spokesperson invoked "common sense" and
"congestion"".

WM
www.critest.com

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
On Dec 1, 4:07 pm, "Paulston" wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12..._police_rules/

P

"The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking
photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under
section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking
photographs unless they are in an area where photography is prevented
by other legislation.

If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as
part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of
the Terrorism Act 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Film and
memory cards may be seized as part of the search, but officers do not
have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images
may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras
or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to
examine them.

Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found
and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination.
The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the
device on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or
damaged."

"A spokesperson told us that "there is no legal requirement for
individuals to have a license or to seek permission from the Council
in respect of taking photographs on the street. However, if
individuals were taking photos in Parliament Square, and did so
without checking with us first, we would probably ask them to move
on".

When we asked why, in the absence of a legal basis for doing this, the
Council would do this, their spokesperson invoked "common sense" and
"congestion"".

WM
www.critest.com

Have you noticed that all the news stories of photographers being stopped
and questioned feature photographers using large, bulky, SLR type or
professional looking cameras.
It occurs to me that if a terrorist wanted to covertly take photographs, he
would use something small and inconspicuous. A pocket sized point'n'shoot. A
disposable film camera where there is no traceable EXIF data on the images.
A mobile phone. Or one of the hundreds of freely available covert
surveillance cameras that are disguised as pens, torches or buttons.

I've been stopped and questioned by plod while lawfully indulging in my
perfectly legal hobby of photpgraphy, simply because my gear consists of a
large bulky DSLR and a tripod, and it's therefore quite obvious what I was
doing.

In article , (used to be) Fat Sam samandjanet@kn
ox.orangehome.co.uk writes
I've been stopped and questioned by plod while lawfully indulging in my
perfectly legal hobby of photpgraphy, simply because my gear consists of
a large bulky DSLR and a tripod, and it's therefore quite obvious what I
was doing.

Obvious to intelligent, sensible people, there's your problem.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

(used to be) Fat Sam wrote:

I've been stopped and questioned by plod while lawfully indulging in my
perfectly legal hobby of photpgraphy, simply because my gear consists of a
large bulky DSLR and a tripod, and it's therefore quite obvious what I was
doing.

Covert reconnaissance?

--
Mike