London Police Continue War Against Photography

The promise to ease up on photographers in the United Kingdom has turned out to be just another government LIE. Police in London are continuing their war against photography as evidenced by this video.

According to the photographer who was a working journalist:

It had taken less than two minutes from the first click of my camera. My subject was the Gherkin, an iconic London landmark photographed hundreds of times a day and, as it turned out, the ideal venue to test claims from a growing number of photographers claiming they cannot take a picture in public without being harassed under anti-terrorist laws. [...]

By the time they looked at my images, threatening me with arrest for obstruction if I didn’t show them, the officers had stopped a second photographer.

Read The Rest At Orwell's Dreams

Award-winning videographer arrested in W.V. shopping mall

Scott Rensberger in Bosnia (Photo from Rensberger's blog)

By Carlos Miller
After being treated like a child molester by a cop in a shopping mall, award-winning videographer Scott Rensberger reached up to snap a picture of the offending officer.

The officer did what many officers would do in that situation; he lifted his hand in front of the camera to block the photo. Contact was made.

Rensberger was then arrested for battery on a police officer.

Now he is demanding his charges be dropped as well as an apology. He plans to file a complaint. He should be talking to a lawyer.

Read The Rest Here

Maryland cops force photographer to delete photos

Another town. Another cop. Another photographer gets his photos deleted.

This time it went down in Anne Arundel County, Maryland when Antonio Amador grabbed his camera to photograph an fatal accident that took place outside his home on October 24. This was part of an ongoing project to get drivers to slow down in the area.

He started filming the accident scene when an angry cop approached him, demanding he delete his memory card, according to the Maryland Gazette.

“Suddenly I hear this screaming, like somebody really mad,” he said. “I see this guy charging at me saying, ‘delete those pictures now!’ “

The officers threatened to arrest him if he didnt’ delete his photos. Amador tried to explain to them that he had a Constitutional right to take the photos.

“They couldn’t care less,” he said. “They threatened to handcuff me just because I questioned why I should delete my photos in the first place.”

The man who died in the accident was the son of a Baltimore police officer, so maybe that is why the officers felt they needed to violate Amador’s Constitutional rights.

Now the ACLU is looking into it. And Amador has filed a complaint against the department.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Related posts:

1. Maryland jury slaps police on wrist in journalist abuse suit
2. Maryland cop’s lies about DUI arrest exposed by surveillance video
3. Dash cam proves Maryland cop to be a boldface liar

Source: Photography is Not a crime

S.F. guard threatens to break photographer’s face and camera

Security guards at 555 California Street make up their own photography laws (Photo by Troy Holden)

By Carlos Miller
It seems like the taller the building, the more dickish the security guards.

At least in California where security guards from Los Angeles to San Francisco have made up their own laws regarding photography in public places

Earlier this year, it was security guards at the U.S. Bank in Los Angeles, which is the tallest building west of the Mississippi River.

This week, it was security guards at 555 California Street, the second tallest building in San Francisco.

After hearing the usual story of security guard harassment and intimidation from a photographer name JohnM.brasia, photographer Troy Holden and another photographer decided to check it out for themselves.

Within a few moments several security guards greeted us with wagging fingers and walkie-talkies.

No photography, they stated clearly. Why, we responded. Safety, they said.

I decided to challenge this statement and the older of the bunch (left) asked me if I wanted to be punched in the face. No, I replied, I have to go back to work and a black eye would make things awkward for me. He then asked me how I would feel if he broke my camera. I told him I would be bummed, but that I needed an upgrade and if he touched me or my camera I would seek monetary legal action to the extent of a brand new Canon 5D Mark II

The man on the left threatened to break the photographer's face and camera (Photo by Troy Holden)

Holden then sent an email to someone at the top, complaining of the incident. He received the following response from Fatima Vegas who works on the security team for Voranado Reality, the company that manages the property:

“Thank you for your e-mail. I just received information from the incident within the past hour. I am investigating the matter. This is not typical of our security team at 555 California St. If our investigation results in the officer behaving in an unprofessional manner, he will be disciplined accordingly. We do not tolerate that sort of behavior from any of our service providers.”

He should be fired and maybe even investigated by police. Hopefully Troy keeps up with this incident, ensuring the guard no longer is able to make physical threats.

Source: Photography is Not A Crime

Paranoia over paedophilia

By demonising adults who photograph children in public spaces and banning cameras from school plays, we pervert childhood

An ugly incident marred this year's International Birdman competition. As thousands watched human-powered flying machines being launched from Worthing pier, a man took some photographs of children on the promenade west of the Lido.

Fortunately a concerned citizen spotted him and alerted one of the event's stewards, who immediately called the police. They were on the spot within seconds, according to Sharon Clarke, Worthing's town centre manager. "What it showed was that with everyone working together, things can be stopped immediately," a reassuring thought for the anxious readers of the Sussex-wide evening paper, The Argus, which led its front page on the outrage.

Officers arrested the offender and seized his camera. They then contacted Suffolk police, who searched the man's home in Ipswich and took away computer data. So far, there seems no reason to suppose that anything untoward was found, but a Home Office laboratory is to conduct an in-depth examination of the material that was impounded.

Now, Worthing police are working to establish how many innocent people at the event may have been traumatised by the affair. Sergeant Maurice Fisher has applauded the public spirit of the vigilant bystander without whose actions "it is very likely this would have gone without intervention".

Perhaps we should all be grateful that in broken Britain it's still possible to find a community whose law enforcement agents, civic officers, local media and ordinary citizens can pull together to rebuff an evil threatening their wellbeing. However, on an inside page of the very edition that chronicled the drama in Worthing, the Argus lamented that Sussex police are now swamped by burdens on their time that prevent them from attending to "what really matters to taxpayers". Might some of the latter be wondering if their county force has got its priorities right?

The ability to take pictures in public places was once a highly regarded English liberty. It's not clear how the children photographed on Worthing's prom would have been harmed by their unwitting experience.

Once, people who found youngsters attractive would have been thought the better for it. Images of Cupids and Ganymedes beguiled our predecessors for centuries. Even during our own strangely prurient millennium, Lewis Carroll's photographs of the girl immortalised in Alice in Wonderland were thought worth saving for the nation.

Let's suppose the worst, however. Let's take the case of a mackintoshed outdoor snapper who is indeed sexually attracted to children and intends to salivate over his snaps. Surely it's better that he should concentrate on his own pictures of unconcerned subjects, rather than download images perhaps secured at the price of real abuse. Maybe taking photos is the way he diverts his desires from more dangerous activities. Certainly people like him will need some way of managing their inclinations. Bang them up as much as you like, but eventually they will still have to re-enter society and live alongside your children.

But unfortunately paranoia over photography is not limited to Worthing. Earlier this summer, a Devon primary school banned parents from taking photos of their children on sports day. The chair of the parent teacher association explained: "It is all to do with the pictures getting into the wrong hands, and the school has to follow its own code of conduct." Cameras are now routinely forbidden at nativity plays.

We are tainting our relationship with our children, perverting their attitude to adults and, perhaps, actually fostering paedophile abuse. Why?

Source: The Guardian

L.A. security guard gets physical with photographer

By Carlos Miller
The Michael Jackson hysteria in Los Angleles sparked a confrontation between an ignorant security guard and an assertive photographer earlier this week.

The security guard works for Andrews International and is named Vasquez (#782). He was standing on Hollywood Blvd ordering some other guy to get off the sidewalk, who apparently was heckling reporters but claims he was protesting something or another.

The photographer, wearing a video camera around his neck, was standing a few feet from the two and snapped a photo with a still camera.

This, of course, prompted Vasquez to turn his attention on the photographer, telling him to “stop taking pictures.”

The photographer asserted his rights which led to the security guard to order him off the sidewalk - which he has no authority to do.

Photographer: “I’m going to stay here and take as many photos as I want.”
Security guard: “You’re not going to with me.”
Photographer: “Yes, I will. If you’re in public, I will.”
Security guard: “No, you will not.”
Photographer: “I know the law, you can bark all you want …”
Security guard: “It doesn’t matter, don’t take another photo of me.”
Photographer: “What’s going to happen?”
Security guard: “You’ll see.”

Vasquez then grabs the camera and pushes it into the photographer’s face.

They continue arguing with Vasquez claiming that “you can’t take a picture of me.”

Vasquez calls his supervisor and the photographer calls the cops.

Vasquez, if you’re reading this, not only can he take a photo of you. He can videotape you as well.

Vasquez should be fired and Andrews International should be sued.

Click on the photographer’s website for a list of email addresses to local politicians and Andrews International bigwigs to file a complaint.

Source: Photography is not a Crime

Amateur UK photographer arrested for “prevention of terrorism”

Photo by Alex Turner

By Carlos Miller
Another photographer was arrested under the United Kingdom’s new anti-terrorism law that has turned the simple act of photography into a lethal form of terrorism. At least that is what they’ll have you think.

This time it was Alex Turner, an amateur photographer who drew the attention of authorities after snapping the fish and chip shop in the above photograph.

The men who confronted him said they were from the Medway Council, which is apparently some type of government agency in Kent County. They were not in uniform but they wore badges on their belts that had the logo of Kent Police, according to Turner’s blog post of the incident.

But I guess they were not police either because they ended up flagging down police when he refused to provide his identity.

So as the cops asked the same old dumb questions as to why he was taking pictures, he snapped a photo of them. And that was when he was arrested.

Photo by Alex Turner

Or something like that. The blog post, while very detailed, is a little confusing and cumbersome. Maybe it’s that English vernacular

So he was placed in a police van for 20 minutes until a couple of plainclothes cops spoke to him about the dangers of terrorism and the perils of refusing to identify oneself.

But then he also writes that “at no time did I refuse to give an account for myself and my activities in the High Street” - so it is not clear whether he did or did not identify himself.

To make a long story short, he told them that his identification was in the inside pocket of his jacket, which they retrieved while he was handcuffed.

Then he was further patted down and even made to take off his sneakers, which embarrassed him considering he had become a spectacle to the gathering pedestrians.

Then after all was said and done, they released him and even offered their hands, but not before handing him a citation that confirmed he was searched on the grounds of “prevention of terrorism.”

So now he is pissed off and has fired a lengthy letter to the Professional Standards Department recounting his experience.

But he is also careful not to name any of the cops who harassed him because from what I understand, that would also be considered a savage act of terrorism. Notice how he also blurred their faces in the photo.

This is what he wants:

With regards to redress I seek a written apology in relation to any shortfalls identified with regards to the involved officer’s conduct and consideration of compensation to be made to me for the upset, embarrassment and psychological trauma caused. I would also like Kent and Medway Police to liaise with Medway Council in order to identify the two unidentified men that initially stopped and questioned me. I seek for their conduct to also be fully investigated, the process and outcomes of which I request to be shared with me.

The way things are going in the UK, those demands will probably be considered a barbaric act of terrorism as well.

Source: Photography is not a Crime

The war on street photography

Photographer Alex Turner has been arrested by Kent police for being "too tall" in an action which must cast further doubt on the collective sanity of Kent Police (see Kingsnorth) and which also suggests that some police forces are now really behaving as if we lived in police state, a phrase that I have been reluctant to use.

In his blog, Turner gives a full account of being stopped by two men in Chatham High Street, after he took a picture of a fish bar called Mick's Plaice, which stands between Specsavers and a shop called Mr Flower and advertises jacket potatoes and an all day breakfast in a colour scheme of bold blue and white. The men said they worked for Medway Council.

"I saw a badge attached to one of the men's waistband and saw the logo of Kent Police. The men asked me why I was taking pictures in the High Street.

I told them photography was a hobby and explained what and who I had taken pictures of and why".

Turner continues, "I asked them under what authority they were making their request. They did not provide a clear answer to this question in that they failed to state the legal authority under which they were making their enquiries."

Because they neither stated their authority nor properly identified themselves, Turner refused to answer their questions. The men summoned uniformed police. Turner took photographs of two officers as they approached him reproduced with blurred faces on his blog – and arrest followed. He was handcuffed held in police van and then questioned by two plain clothes officers. "They spoke about the threat of terrorism. They were keen to seek my agreement with regards to the views they expressed, both about the threat of terrorism and the suspicious nature of people with cameras and especially those who chose not to provide identifying details about themselves when requested to do so."

He was searched while still handcuffed. The officer told him to take of his trainers and patted down the soles of his feet. At some point the officers made a veiled threat about Turner's ability to continue as photographer.

"Whilst sharing their views about the threat of terrorism officer xxxxx [name redacted] stated she had felt threatened by me when I took her picture. I cannot recall exactly what she said but I do recall her referring to my size and implying she found it intimidating at the time (I am 5ft 11in and weigh about 12 stone)."

Turner concludes with this, "I believe the way I was treated was unjustified and wholly disproportionate. I assert that officer xxxxx misused her powers of arrest and demonstrated a poor understanding of the law in relation to arrest, the use of force, the use of detention, photography in public places, obstruction and the ... Terrorism Act 2000. Furthermore I assert that officer xxxxx is unsuitable to act as a police officer or at the very least requires further training if she is intimidated by a male of an unremarkable stature taking a single picture with a camera pointed in her direction."

Clearly something has to be done about the police attitude to photography and filming. This week it was reported that Essex Police photographed residents who attended a peaceful meeting about the future of Southend Airport. The Lib Dem MP Norman Baker who attended the meeting likened the behaviour of the police to "Stasi like spying" and attacked the "gross intrusion into people's civil liberties". The images have subsequently been destroyed and the officer in charge sent a half penitent letter to the local newspaper. The police response underlines how important it is for the public to challenge the use of covert and overt surveillance of law abiding political activity.

In another development, the magazine Amateur Photographer, has sought to clarify whether police have the right to delete photographic images. The Metropolitan Police's guidance suggests that they have the power "to seize and retain any article found during a search that they reasonably suspect is intended to be used in connection with terrorism."

But Rupert Grey, a lawyer working for Swan Turton, one of the best new law firms, told the magazine, "This is correct as far as the powers conferred by section 44 are concerned. But the advice fails to point out that although film and memory cards may be seized as part of a search, officers do not have a legal power to delete images or to destroy film."

He added: "The Association of Chief Police Officers' practice advice on stop and search in relation to terrorism makes this clear; so do guidelines for MPS staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews: "Once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order."

Despite being too tall, Alex Turner did not have his pictures deleted.

However, the offence to his rights as a law abiding citizen are shocking and he is due an apology. What is needed now is clear statement from the home secretary on the rights of photographers and the limits of police surveillance.

Source: The Guardian