Abuse and intimidation of London photographer

In message , Wolfgang
Weisselberg writes
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Martin Brown wrote:

and if you are taking pictures that might be useful to a terrorist you
must expect to be challenged.

So who says what pictures might be useful to a terrorist?

Some architectural photography is indistinguishable from what a
terrorist would do to scope out the location. On one notable occasion I
was photographing buildings in Manchester exactly 24 hours before the
IRA blasted them to hell. You can see why they might be interested in
me. AFAIK The shots did not contain anything useful to the police.

If I was a terrorist with a semblance of brain, I'd use a bag
with a hidden lens hole or similar gadgets. not a big, easy to
see, camera.

These days with ubiquitous camera phones and incredibly cheap miniature
cameras the authorities are up against it. A well equipped and trained
terrorist group is probably impossible to prevent from photographing
stuff at will. But they may still be able to catch badly trained would
be jihadist amateurs who could still be a dangerous nuisance to public
safety.

I'd say security was a lot tighter in the past during the major IRA
bombing campaign against UK city centres than it is now.

Photographing is not like leaving your package unattended in the
train station.

Depends what you are photographing at the time.

When I was challenged the first time I was photographing something that
had been identified in a strategic risk analysis as a soft target with
severe economic impact. Once challenged by their security I could see
why too. They let me keep the images that I had already taken and it was
a perfectly civilised and professional encounter.

The shot that most nearly got me into serious difficulties was of a
"Keystone Cops" moment in Greece outside a police station just after an
arriving police car had sped into and rear ended one in a line of four,
and badly damaging the whole lot. They were not happy at all. It is
still a good photo.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems jaf wrote:
While they have always been proud to the point of arrogance.
They always have been, and will remain, subjects of the crown.
Like sheep.

Had to walk barefoot in a US airport lately?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Darrell Larose wrote:
I had a similar "stop shooting request" in 1999 at the Ottawa Airport, a
squadron of transient RAF Jaguars. I was actually on public land when
approached by the Military Police. He strutted up claiming I couldn't
photograph under the "Official Secrets Act" I explained that;

a/. The a/c were on the civilian ramp, visible from a public place they
were fair game.

b/. The aircraft were over 25 years old, they were not secret.

c/. If they were "top secret" perhaps they should have been hangered at
CFB Trenton.

He thrust his chest out an said he would confiscate my camera and film...

I then suggested as I WAS NOT ON THE BASE, he had zero jurisdiction, he
said he was exempt, I asked "do you have a radio?" that he should ask
that the city police be responded, that they would eventually show up
and probably laugh at him. He looked at hi watch and figured he would
miss the 2-for-one cruller special at Tim Horton's!

I was also approached by building rent-a-cops when I was shooting the
facade of a store I worked in. Same BS "the building owner's don't want
their building photographed. I was on the public sidewalk, so I debated
with him for a minute, then I waved the RCMP that was sitting 20' away
on embassy duty. THe RCMP Constable told the rental cop, that no law was
broken..

Well, good for you, but you were still intimidated. Unsuccessfully
perhaps, but the intimidation existed.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Cynicor wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
I thought the London Eye was owned and operated by British Airways. I
would have thought they had bigger negative problems on their plate at
the moment, like finding where the owners of 50,000 bags lost in
Terminal 5 were, right now than preventing someone from actively
publicising their positive activities.

Right now there are 50,000 bags going around a carousel in an empty
arrivals hall at Prestwick.

Daleks. They are filled with Daleks.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

On Mar 28, 12:33*pm, "Robert Brace" wrote:
"dmaster" wrote in message

...
On Mar 27, 11:36 am, John Ferguson wrote:

Welcome To The Gulag wrote: This is scary stuff - seriously, what has
happened to a once proud and free
nation?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...tographer/2008....

[click to play video]

I reckon I'll avoid London if I ever get to GB.

Well, I spent several weeks in London immediately after the
Underground bombings. *Parts of the line were still blocked and
security was quite heavy. *My wife and I were carrying a camcorder, my
none-too-inconspicuous Panasonic FZ20, and another digital camera. *We
took photos and video everywhere we went, including in the
underground. *Not once were we stopped, questioned, or harrassed. *We
did *ask* security personel if we could take their pictures before
doing so, and we were never refused.

My suspicion is that unless you are purposely trying to annoy someone,
or taking pictures in an obviously restricted area, you won't have any
trouble.

Dan (Woj...)
Dan (Woj...)

dmaster:
* * Your response is so typical of the "gee if I get in trouble with the
authorities, then I must obviously be in the wrong and if they question me I
must bow my head so they can more accurately land their blows".

Wow, that's quite a stretch. I thought I was being reasonable to
recognize that some places (military instalations and the like) have a
legitimate reason to be wary of photography. Hey, what did I know?

* * You must be Canadian, eh?

Oops. Wrong again. Its a good thing you are so good at leaping to
conclusions. Otherwise, you might come off sounding like a raving nut
job.

* * What in hell do you mean by "purposely trying" to annoy someone and
what, specifically, is an "obvious" restriction on an "area".

Well, purposely could involve ignoring clearly posted signs, not
answering when questioned, not pausing to address a question, shouting
"I will not bow my head so you can more accurately land your blows."
instead, "Hi, I'm on a holiday and I was trying to take a couple of
pictures of ...". And so on. You get it. Hmmm. Or maybe not.

* * Total BS, it is. *The video shows what happens when someone has
mistakenly interpreted their authority (racial comments aside) and is
challenged *-- *nothing more.

And while the video may be completely accurate, many of us know how
leaving off what came before can completely color what remains in a
video.

* * Those of us who have seen this Rent-A-Cop approach to Policing the
public are not at all surprised by the public's reaction, especially when
dealing with those in the public who have not accepted the Master VS. Peon
relationship.
Bob

You've got quite a row going there, Bob. Nothing wrong with that, but
effective social change usually begins with people who properly
recognize their targets and don't flail mindlessly in all directions.
Or that could just be me.

Chill.

Dan (Woj...)

"dmaster" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 12:33 pm, "Robert Brace" wrote:
"dmaster" wrote in message

...
On Mar 27, 11:36 am, John Ferguson wrote:

Welcome To The Gulag wrote: This is scary stuff - seriously, what has
happened to a once proud and free
nation?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...tographer/2008...

[click to play video]

I reckon I'll avoid London if I ever get to GB.

Well, I spent several weeks in London immediately after the
Underground bombings. Parts of the line were still blocked and
security was quite heavy. My wife and I were carrying a camcorder, my
none-too-inconspicuous Panasonic FZ20, and another digital camera. We
took photos and video everywhere we went, including in the
underground. Not once were we stopped, questioned, or harrassed. We
did *ask* security personel if we could take their pictures before
doing so, and we were never refused.

My suspicion is that unless you are purposely trying to annoy someone,
or taking pictures in an obviously restricted area, you won't have any
trouble.

Dan (Woj...)
Dan (Woj...)

dmaster:
Your response is so typical of the "gee if I get in trouble with the
authorities, then I must obviously be in the wrong and if they question me
I
must bow my head so they can more accurately land their blows".

Wow, that's quite a stretch. I thought I was being reasonable to
recognize that some places (military instalations and the like) have a
legitimate reason to be wary of photography. Hey, what did I know?

You must be Canadian, eh?

Oops. Wrong again. Its a good thing you are so good at leaping to
conclusions. Otherwise, you might come off sounding like a raving nut
job.

What in hell do you mean by "purposely trying" to annoy someone and
what, specifically, is an "obvious" restriction on an "area".

Well, purposely could involve ignoring clearly posted signs, not
answering when questioned, not pausing to address a question, shouting
"I will not bow my head so you can more accurately land your blows."
instead, "Hi, I'm on a holiday and I was trying to take a couple of
pictures of ...". And so on. You get it. Hmmm. Or maybe not.

Total BS, it is. The video shows what happens when someone has
mistakenly interpreted their authority (racial comments aside) and is
challenged -- nothing more.

And while the video may be completely accurate, many of us know how
leaving off what came before can completely color what remains in a
video.

Those of us who have seen this Rent-A-Cop approach to Policing the
public are not at all surprised by the public's reaction, especially when
dealing with those in the public who have not accepted the Master VS. Peon
relationship.
Bob

You've got quite a row going there, Bob. Nothing wrong with that, but
effective social change usually begins with people who properly
recognize their targets and don't flail mindlessly in all directions.
Or that could just be me.

Chill.

Dan (Woj...)

Or, as I have learned, the more you let pass unchallenged -- the more that
will pass.
Bob

Martin Brown wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes
Martin Brown wrote:

and if you are taking pictures that might be useful to a terrorist you
must expect to be challenged.

So who says what pictures might be useful to a terrorist?

Some architectural photography is indistinguishable from what a
terrorist would do to scope out the location.

Then there are only 2 possibilities:
a) outlaw bread, as well: most terrorists (and criminals, too!) eat that
stuff, and use it to fuel their bodies, so they can do terror
b) live with the fact that not even a brutal police state can prevent
terrorism.

On one notable occasion I
was photographing buildings in Manchester exactly 24 hours before the
IRA blasted them to hell. You can see why they might be interested in
me.

So they knew about the attack 24 hours in advance??
Oh, they were interested after the attack ...

AFAIK The shots did not contain anything useful to the police.

Obviously.
Most terrorists do not stage demonstrations to tell the world
that they'll blow this-and-that building in 24 hours.

But they may still be able to catch badly trained would
be jihadist amateurs who could still be a dangerous nuisance to public
safety.

Tourists may be a nuisance, but they are not *that* bad.

-Wolfgang