Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: "anti-photo" editorial  (Read 5162 times)

joneil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • This is what beer does to you....
"anti-photo" editorial
« on: May 05, 2008, 07:20:34 AM »

From Today's London (Ontario) Free Press
Link:
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Business/Columnists/Canton_David

Headline of editorial is:  U.K. anti-photo campaign merely security theatre   

  Interesting read.   Even better, IMO< to see this issue addressed in the media.
Logged

dalethorn

  • Guest
"anti-photo" editorial
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2008, 08:22:16 AM »

I wonder what kind of Cameras the Real Terrorists used in 911. Perhaps we should steer clear of those.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
"anti-photo" editorial
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2008, 03:46:28 PM »

There is an early day motion being put through UK Parliment by Austin Mitchell, an MP [who is a keen photographer] to get police to learn the law regarding photography. The fact that cops don't know the laws they are meant to enforce is in itself ludicrous.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

dalethorn

  • Guest
"anti-photo" editorial
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2008, 06:56:17 PM »

Regardless of the law, police and other officials generally don't like it when you take photos of them, particularly when they go into action. Keep a low profile.
Logged

colinb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
"anti-photo" editorial
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2008, 06:55:23 AM »

Quote
Regardless of the law, police and other officials generally don't like it when you take photos of them, particularly when they go into action. Keep a low profile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193669\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think this is almost exactly wrong. The point about having a system of law that applies to all is that whether some individual or group likes it is irrelevant. If you have to scurry about and furtively take pictures from under your mac/gaberdine, then you've already admitted defeat.

If you take a photo, openly, and legally, and in doing so some officer of the law is upset, so be it. They get to be subject to the law too. If they're so upset that they behave in an illegal manner then it is up to you [not your MP/TD/Senator] to pursue the matter through the many available channels for legal remedy.

I'm not advocating shoving your lens into the face of some policeman up his eyeballs in youthful miscreants. But I don't advocate that for the same reason that I don't shove my camera in any stranger's face.

Between good manners and legal precedent, can't we find a way to pursue a legitimate goal without loosing our sense of balance?

c
Logged

dalethorn

  • Guest
"anti-photo" editorial
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2008, 03:37:47 PM »

When it comes to photographing the officials, I certainly agree on principle. But when you get inside of some of the controversial cases and get a feel for the paranoia on both sides, you can better understand why the police often react to seize first and ask questions later, even if you don't agree with the officials (and I often don't). What I would stress is keeping a low profile to avoid losing the images.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up