Police ban on photographing buildings?

[HPZ]

Hi guys
Have a read of the attached article. Interesting stuff.

regards
H

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17859754-28793,00.html
Snappers to defy police ban
January 18, 2006
POLICE directives about what could and could not be photographed were an abuse of power and should be ignored, Liberty Victoria has said.

The civil liberties body made the statement after a report in a Melbourne newspaper said a member of the Geelong Camera Club received a visit from police after he photographed gas storage cylinders at the city's Shell oil refinery.
Club member Hans Kawitski was told not to photograph industrial installations and was ordered to inform members of the camera club to follow his lead.
Liberty Victoria said its advice to photographers would be to ignore the directive.
"The police have got no place making such warnings," president Brian Walters SC said.
"Merely to threaten is exceeding police powers and is an abuse of power.
"If you were a serious terrorist you wouldn't be openly taking photographs. Taking photos of public objects is a normal and quite understandable part of a modern society."
Mr Walters said police had been spooked by politicians and had acquired "an inflated fear of terrorism".
"We currently have thousands of cameras set up to watch citizens, but if citizens themselves take photos, the authorities take that as some sort of risk," he said.
Geelong Camera Club vice-president Frank Sady said the club was having its first meeting tonight after a summer recess.
He said he would be advising them against following the police orders.
"Until such time as there's a law (we won't be doing anything differently)," he said.
"We're not doing any harm and we're not hurting anybody."
Mr Sady said the directive reminded him of visiting Poland when the secret police were stopping photography.
"No terrorist is going to hang around the front gate (of Shell's refinery) taking photos," he said.
"It's just the freedom to do what's reasonable in our pursuit of photography. We take photos for aesthetic purposes, not for ulterior motives."
The Australian Photographic Society said the incident was sad but not surprising.
Senior vice-president Bert Hoveling said he had been taking a series of photos at Eastland Shopping Centre when he was "hauled off by security to management".
"They said, this is company policy that you can't take photos inside Eastland shopping centre," he said. "We have to run this fine line now between getting the photos we want for enjoying our photography or entering competition and not transgressing local policies or laws."

[Steve Parr]

I think this is the third thread on this topic.

My view on it is anyone who openly defies police orders should be held to account for that, whether there's a law against what a person is doing or not.

In another thread, someone mentioned that public officials should be held to a higher standard. I agree with that.

I also believe that they should be shown a greater level of deference, something which, from what I've read here, far too many photographers are not willing to do...

Steve

[Barb42]

In a situation like that, I would suggest getting back in the car and using a cell phone to call the local police chief, or whatever the local head of the police department is called. If that doesn't work, there is always the local politico - mayoral types; whatever version of the ACLU type of organization that is around, and the local news people. Never openly oppose police authority. That is just plain dangerous. But just walking away and writing forums won't help. You have to take a stand. Good grief, even if you were a terrorist, stopping you from taking a photo is not going to stop an attack. They don't need a photo - they could probably just get the info from Google. In case no one has noticed, the WTC was taken down by men in planes, not men carrying cameras.

[photohungry]

I think this is the third thread on this topic.

My view on it is anyone who openly defies police orders should be held to account for that, whether there's a law against what a person is doing or not.

In another thread, someone mentioned that public officials should be held to a higher standard. I agree with that.

I also believe that they should be shown a greater level of deference, something which, from what I've read here, far too many photographers are not willing to do...

Steve

Public officials should not be held to a different standard...In my ethical opinion, everyone should be held to the same standard. If a police officer gets into a fender-bender and is at fault, he should not lose his job or be prosecuted under a special ordinance made up to hold them to a higher standard, they should get what we get - a ticket, and if their employer wants to take additional action, such as placing him on probabtion that is ok. But saying that people are held to different standards is contrary to the term "standard".

Now about police over stepping their power. You should question any officers motives when it comes to your civil rights. This article is written from Austrailia, which I have no experience, but they are a democracy, and as such must inherently have a clause in their defining legal document that citizens have the right to free press (which includes social documentation ie. photography). If you are stopped by the police, first and foremost, DO NOT get into a verbal confrontation! Usually if you tell them what you are doing, they will understand and realize you are not a terrorist. BUT if they continue their request, or get verbally abusive to you, you have the absolute right to speak to their supervisor. When you speak to the supervisor, just use a simple phrase......"I don't want to have to get a court to make the determination as to whether or not I can take photos in public". Usually, they will get the point.

Now, if they still hold this stance, file a formal complaint with your local jurisdictions internal affairs department, and then file a complaint with the district attorneys office, and follow that with a call to your local civil rights organization such as the ACLU.

We need to get away from all this over-reaction when it comes to security concerns - strip searching 6 year old kids, 90 year old women and rounding up photographers is getting out of hand. We need to start making common sense as our guide to security - not knee jerk reactionary tactics.

[Mick Emmett]

We need to get away from all this over-reaction when it comes to security concerns - strip searching 6 year old kids, 90 year old women and rounding up photographers is getting out of hand. We need to start making common sense as our guide to security - not knee jerk reactionary tactics.

Too right photohungry, we must oppose and question anything and everyone who attempts to suppress our civil liberties. When we simply give in to these people without question and allow our standard of life and freedom to be curtailed then the Terrorists have won.

[kenyc]

Public officials should not be held to a different standard...In my ethical opinion, everyone should be held to the same standard. If a police officer gets into a fender-bender and is at fault, he should not lose his job or be prosecuted under a special ordinance made up to hold them to a higher standard, they should get what we get - a ticket, and if their employer wants to take additional action, such as placing him on probabtion that is ok. But saying that people are held to different standards is contrary to the term "standard".

Now about police over stepping their power. You should question any officers motives when it comes to your civil rights. This article is written from Austrailia, which I have no experience, but they are a democracy, and as such must inherently have a clause in their defining legal document that citizens have the right to free press (which includes social documentation ie. photography). If you are stopped by the police, first and foremost, DO NOT get into a verbal confrontation! Usually if you tell them what you are doing, they will understand and realize you are not a terrorist. BUT if they continue their request, or get verbally abusive to you, you have the absolute right to speak to their supervisor. When you speak to the supervisor, just use a simple phrase......"I don't want to have to get a court to make the determination as to whether or not I can take photos in public". Usually, they will get the point.

Now, if they still hold this stance, file a formal complaint with your local jurisdictions internal affairs department, and then file a complaint with the district attorneys office, and follow that with a call to your local civil rights organization such as the ACLU.

We need to get away from all this over-reaction when it comes to security concerns - strip searching 6 year old kids, 90 year old women and rounding up photographers is getting out of hand. We need to start making common sense as our guide to security - not knee jerk reactionary tactics.

Agreed. No one is above the law and at least in the U.S.A. the government must be reminded that they are accountable to the people, they are out of control.

KAC

[Sean-Mcr]

Nobody deserves any more respect over somebody else simply because they are police officers. Anybody who lives in the Uk knows that's how most of us think, and i'm talking about the general public here not photographers

I think it's a serious danger to that persons sense of self and to the way they carry out they're duties (which they do for pay) that a person behind a uniform should feel they had an automatic right to some higher level of respect above the rest of us mere mortals. That's just not how the world turns

[DocFrankenstein]

My view on it is anyone who openly defies police orders should be held to account for that, whether there's a law against what a person is doing or not.
Police is the executive branch of government. They can't "order you" to do anything unless you're breaking a law. They can't order you off a bublic street. They can't randomly search you (where I live at least)

If they want to ban photography, it should go through the legislation and then executive branch will be able to enforce it.

[ssim]

In my humble opinion, there have been many threads on this very subject and it is pretty much the same posters in each of them holding their respective positions.

http://www.pbase.com/ssim/image/55140716.jpg

[photohungry]

Sorry, did not know that there was a 1 post - 1 topic limit on the forums here. I see in other forums on this site people asking the same old question time and time again, but people don't take the time as you have to point out that the topic has been visited.

Also - I post whenever this topic comes up because I care about my rights - and it is important that we all help each other understand that our rights are being trampled on.

[Jon]

Sorry, did not know that there was a 1 post - 1 topic limit on the forums here. I see in other forums on this site people asking the same old question time and time again, but people don't take the time as you have to point out that the topic has been visited.

Also - I post whenever this topic comes up because I care about my rights - and it is important that we all help each other understand that our rights are being trampled on.
This forum does have a "NO POLITICS" rule, and virtually every time this particular topic has come up, it's degenerated into political wrangling. Sad, but true. So we end up sending out PMs to people to "cool it", closing threads down time after time and nothing changes.

[Mick Emmett]

Over here we had a series of adverts in which one guy kept saying to the other that he didn't do politics, in the end they found they had nothing to talk about at all, nearly all the postings on this forum have political content of one form or another although perhaps not as much in your face as this particular posting. It may be politics but it does involve having the right to take photographs or not so I can't think of a better place than here to discuss this particular subject, I think a blanket ban on anything political is a little Draconian don't you?

[DavidW]

I'm mindful of being drawn into a political argument here. With threads such as this, I have a personal rule to be constructive, or keep away. For example, in the thread about photographer's rights in the UK, Linda, who produced this (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php) came to join us, and I suggested a way to make the information hopefully more useful in the field. Hopefully Linda will have some time to revisit this soon.

I think the problem with these threads is that we can't often do anything to help. Unfortunately these things happen, and often the best approach is a pragmatic one, even if you were within your rights to continue to take photographs. I believe our actions in situations where we're confronted do reflect on the public perception of photography. Much as we may be exasperated by being confronted, especially when the reasons given are flimsy or bogus, continuing a confrontation may well be counterproductive and might lead to less favourable attitudes towards photographers in the future.


For example, there's a rule about monopods and tripods on the London Eye. My tripod was, deliberately, locked in the boot of my car. I knew that tripods were banned on the Eye, there was no advantage in me having a tripod with me anyway and I didn't want to mess around leaving the tripod in the Eye's cloakroom. My photographic insurance covers theft from a locked boot in any case.

My monopod was strapped to my camera bag, which was strapped to my chest. I wasn't planning on using the monopod on the Eye anyway. The security guards asked me to hand over the monopod, which I did willingly. I was given a receipt, which I exchanged for the monopod when I got off the Eye. I don't see what good this did, but I was happy to comply with their wishes - the London Eye is private property, and it's up to the owners to set whatever rules they wish.


I know it's a poor example, as I wasn't being "denied my rights", but I hope it makes its point that our attitudes as photographers can be important.



David

[photohungry]

This forum does have a "NO POLITICS" rule, and virtually every time this particular topic has come up, it's degenerated into political wrangling. Sad, but true. So we end up sending out PMs to people to "cool it", closing threads down time after time and nothing changes.

Well I just think that a forum with Photography as a focal point should encompass every aspect of photography - not just bits and parts. Politics is an aspect of photography. I do not know who made the "no politics" rule, but I am sure that they meant getting into political discussions that have nothing to do with photography, such as judicial nominees and international issues that have no place in a photography forum.

Also, this forum does have a General Chat section, maybe this topic belongs there instead?

[Jaymz]

Well I just think that a forum with Photography as a focal point should encompass every aspect of photography - not just bits and parts. Politics is an aspect of photography. I do not know who made the "no politics" rule, but I am sure that they meant getting into political discussions that have nothing to do with photography, such as judicial nominees and international issues that have no place in a photography forum.

Also, this forum does have a General Chat section, maybe this topic belongs there instead?

I would be willing to guess it was Pekka who created that rule. The problem with politics and religion, in my opinion, is alot of people feel so strongly about either of those subjects that they start arguements, fights, and even wars. I think its always good to question the rules, your rights and see how far the rules will bend, but be careful to not bite the hand that feeds.

[xa-coupe]

Coming from Australia.. Melbourne to be precise and having watched some of the ads they have been showing on the TV here I can understand where the idea of prohibiting the photographing of installations like that has come from. The ad is saying 'report anything suspicious' and at one point shows someone taking a photograph.
Having said that... it's a load of tripe. I suspect if someone went to the reception of the facility and asked for a brochure or a picture, they would get one free of charge. Given the nature of the facility ( I have taken pictures there before ), if you wanted to attack it.. attach something to a big tank .... you hardly need a photo to work that out.
There is no actual law prohibiting the photgraphing of the facilities but I would hazard a guess that 'breach of the peace' ( a common law power ) would be the ultimate authority in this situation.... which would be huge overkill. I suspect that the 'ban' was pure bluff.
Reading between the lines, it's a storm in a teacup. Instead of following up with the powers that be in the police force and askign under what authority the order was made, they went complaining to the snivel libertarians.
I'm pretty sure I kept politics out of that :)