By Carlos Miller
It’s been two months since the United Kingdom made it illegal to photograph cops in public, so it’s not surprising that photographers are being detained as terrorists.
This week alone, the British press reported on two separate incidents in London.
In the first incident, a 62-year-old man was detained after photographing a police car driving erratically on a North London park pedestrian trail, according to the Daily Mail.
Malcolm Sleath, who is chairman of his park society, took a photo because he was annoyed that police were tearing up the grass with their tires, rather than parking the car and walking across the park.
The 62-year-old management consultant said: ‘It was coming a public footpath and leaving tyre marks everywhere and making people move out of the way.
‘They are supposed to park and investigate things on foot, so I wanted to show the picture to the sergeant.
Police supervisors ended up apologizing to Sleath and acknowledging that the officers should have been on foot.
In the second incident, a pair of tourists were ordered to delete their photos because they had photographed transportation-related structures.
Klaus Matzka and his teenage son Loris were visiting London from Vienna and taking pictures of the sites, including the double-decker buses.
The architectural aficionados were especially intrigued by the Vauxhall bus station with its unique design, but that is what got them in trouble, according to The Guardian.
Matkza, a 69-year-old retired television cameraman with a taste for modern architecture, was told that photographing anything to do with transport was “strictly forbidden”. The policemen also recorded the pair’s details, including passport numbers and hotel addresses.
They were forced to delete their images and return home empty-handed.
In a telephone interview from his home in Vienna, Matka said: “I’ve never had these experiences anywhere, never in the world, not even in Communist countries.”
But all is not lost. If Matkza really wants a photo of the Vauxhall bus station, all he has to do is go on Google Maps and get an immediate street view of the unique bus station.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
17 responses so far ↓
1 genewitch // Apr 16, 2009 at 7:04 PM
the google street maps thing is becoming synonymous with “what sort of crack are these anti-photography people smoking”
I’m glad you point it out every time, it makes me chuckle.
The anti-photography thing in UK shouldn’t be there long. wait for some Muslims to get arrested on suspicion of terrorism for taking pictures and see what the ensuing fallout will do to the law.
2 sickntired // Apr 16, 2009 at 7:21 PM
better yet wait till a person who is in a well connected family (a member of a lord family) get arrested for this, You will see that law get trashed.
3 Voice of Reason // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Note to “sickntired”: You said, “better yet wait till a person who is in a well connected family (a member of a lord family) get arrested for this, You will see that law get trashed.”
No. It doesn’t work that way. You might be able to cite cases where it did work that way. Additionally, the UK might be different. However, I’m located in the US, and if somebody is well-connected here (or if they’re simply a LEO, for that matter), violations of most policies or laws are handled as quietly as possible. Cases simply go away. If there’s press coverage or political pressure, a sentence may be imposed, but sentences are usually very light.
For example, there’s a well-known US radio commentator who received essentially no punishment for doing the same thing as a non-connected man in Florida who had far more justification for his actions. The non-connected man was sentenced to 25 years in prison. That’s how it works.
WRT LEOs I’m referring to public policies or laws. The Internal Affairs department, in most cases, is a separate matter. As I understand it, people take Internal Affairs seriously.
4 Simon Jester // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM
If I spoke in the third person, I could replace the word ‘terrorist’ on that warning sheet with the word ‘Simon’.
I’m frightened.
5 Scott Chamness // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:52 PM
“Terrorists Use Computers”
By the love of God, WHAT?!?!
These are as stupid as they sound, yes?
I don’t know even what Britain has to be suspicious of. The terrorists hate us in America much more than them.
6 Voice of Reason // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Note to Simon Jester: “If I spoke in the third person, I could replace the word ‘terrorist’ on that warning sheet with the word ‘Simon’.”
You’re from the UK, right? I imagine that tens of thousands of people would fit the profile. Don’t forget that almost any political web site might be classified as a “terrorist” site. That said, it’s actually worse in the US. In this respect, not WRT surveillance. More than one state has circulated terrorism guidelines that instruct police to treat people who “talk about the Constitution” or who who have bumper stickers related to third-party Presidential candidates as potential terrorists. That’s a lot of people.
The third-party candidates aren’t especially happy about the guidelines. Missouri was forced to back down recently, but it’s my understanding that other states may still be using them.
7 Simon Jester // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:46 AM
VoR:
Nope, Yankee born. I carry a copy of the Constitution with me in my camera bag and I fly the Gadsten flag on occasion. So I know exactly of which you speak.
I’ve been to the UK before and it really makes me about going back with the knowledge that if I takes shots of certain buses (ie. the famous red ones) I might be arrested.
8 Voice of Reason // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Note to Scott Chamness: You said, “Terrorists Use Computers”. By the love of God, WHAT?!?! These are as stupid as they sound, yes?
No, they’re not. Take this kind of thing seriously. It’s part of something else that’s going on. I believe that it’s happening both in the US and in the UK.
Look more closely at the example that you’ve cited. They’re referring specifically to “terrorist-related websites”. The example isn’t idiotic on the face of it. However, it is a serious issue, because as I said to Mr. Jester, almost any political website might be classified as a “terrorist” site. Including this one.
Mr. Miller is concerned about a possible raid. I believe that something simpler might happen. You’re familiar with the US no-fly list. People such as Cat Stevens, of all people, aren’t (or weren’t) allowed to travel. I’ve still got his songs in my head. Morning has broken, like the first morning. Blackbird has spoken, like the first bird. Praise for the singing. Praise for the morning. Not exactly a terrorist anthem, is it? However, he was on the list. If he was on the list, you might be on the list. Anybody reading this.
I believe that Mr. Miller’s ISP and other ISPs might eventually be told that certain websites are on the Internet equivalent of the no-fly list. The ISPs will quietly turn off the sites.
The story that Mr. Miller has posted here doesn’t boost my confidence. Additionally, the example that you’ve cited reminds me of a related step that’s apparently happening right now. There’s legislation pending in the US that’ll allow the executive branch to shut down the Internet. If I understand the situation correctly, there’s a carefully-reasoned argument for the legislation. The argument goes roughly as follows: Terrorism! 9/11! Terrorism! 9/11!
That’s a big step. It supports the argument that political web sites shouldn’t take the status quo for granted. The government might not even bother to criminalize individual sites. Instead, they might simply shut everything down. In my opinion, political sites should be making more noise about the legislation in question.
9 Voice of Reason // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Note to Simon Jester: You said, “Nope. Yankee born. I carry a copy of the Constitution with me in my camera bag and I fly the Gadsten flag on occasion. So I know exactly of which you speak.”
Thanks for responding. I’m not sure what to do about all of this. Mr. Miller is gracious enough to allow discussion about this kind of thing in the forums. However, to use a metaphor that seems to fit, things don’t usually work out the way that they did in the Ender Wiggin novels. The series in question featured a blogger (Peter Wiggin) who took control of the entire world and changed everything based primarily on his clever and insightful posts
I imagine that many posters would identify with Peter Wiggin, but the whole thing isn’t likely to happen here. Nothing will occur WRT these policies unless there’s a public outcry. I don’t believe that there’ll be one. That’s coming from somebody who’d advise you not to be “frightened” immediately. I’m concerned about the long haul.
10 Vidiot // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:49 AM
Voice of Reason,
There’s legislation pending in the US that’ll allow the executive branch to shut down the Internet.
really? Do you have an HR or S number, or a THOMAS cite? I’d like to learn more.
11 sandhya // Apr 17, 2009 at 3:21 AM
I accept this site why because I learn more information from this site
12 Voice of Reason // Apr 17, 2009 at 6:33 AM
Note to Vidiot: You said, “Do you have an HR or S number, or a THOMAS cite? I’d like to learn more.”
Yes, I do. I’m referring to the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, S.773. These things always have fine-sounding names. Cybersecurity sounds important. Who could argue against it? Mother Jones summarizes S.773 as follows:
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.
In other words, since nothing is defined, we’re handing over the entire Internet, as far as US access goes, to the executive branch. This includes weblogs, conventional web sites, RSS feeds, E-mail, other resources. Mr. Miller’s site. Your site, if you have one. Everything.
The following comment from Digg strikes me as relevant:
This thing goes way beyond FISA in its power to invade our privacy. This would allow the federal government to take over and shut down any private network in the US as well as have complete carte blanch in the ability to look at private information… This is a huge power grab and yet where is the outrage?
My personal feeling is that, if free speech on the Internet goes, it’s all over. It doesn’t matter which “side” you’re on politically. Whichever “side” you’re on, do you want a future President on the other “side” to have this kind of power? Both “sides” should strongly oppose this law.
13 Voice of Reason // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:20 AM
In my previous posting, I provided some information about S.773 to Vidiot. I’d like to add a related quote from a blog named Hot Air:
Section 14 may be a bigger problem. It essentially revokes all privacy safeguards on Internet use for all networks. The Fourth Amendment would go straight out the window with the explicit inclusion of “private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.” While Section 18 limits jurisdiction to federal networks, Section 14 allows the government to go after private networks without search warrants. The section also doesn’t limit the jurisdiction to acute attacks, either. That jurisdiction exists at all times.
The big problem isn’t that Obama might shut down the Internet. It’s that the bill essentially repeals the Fourth Amendment.
14 Duane Kerzic // Apr 18, 2009 at 1:17 AM
V of R,
I’ve heard of s.733 and it’s got me concerned. To be honest I’m more concerned now about liberty than I have been in a long time.
15 diomedesxx // Apr 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM
(sigh)
This culture of fear is getting absurd. In a few more years I expect McCarthyism to make a comeback. “He has multiple pre-paid cellular phones! He must be engaging in terrorism-related activities! We must call the police! (Lets ignore the credit crisis making it difficult for people to keep their credit score high enough to get a contract phone, aye? And the possibility that he doesn’t want girlfriend #1 finding out about girlfriend #2)”
As far as cyber-security litigation goes, I don’t think you are ever going to get something out there everyone is going to agree with. There are multiple innate problems with even trying to address it (Ok, sure, you traced the hack back to computer X, now you still need to prove person B was on that computer, doing the deed as Microsoft’s million-plus network of zombie computers makes it hard to prove the person at the computer actually was doing it).
Checks and balances have to be imposed, but as we have seen the past several years, “terrorism” flavored bills tend to be lacking in that regard, as our congress seems to be too afraid of being possibly quoted as opposing an anti-terrorism bill.
16 Voice of Reason // Apr 18, 2009 at 2:11 AM
Note to Duane Kerzic and “diomedesxx”: You are both right to feel the way that you do. Now that we’ve established this, the question is, what’s the appropriate thing to do about it?
WRT S.733, the issue received some publicity. Then, as with the Pataky case, the publicity died down. That’s how things work these days. It’s a democracy, but it’s a “managed” democracy. Things like outrage and loss of interest are taken into account. I’d ask that people call attention to S.733 periodically as the law moves forward.
WRT the big picture, I’m old enough, as are many people in the audience, to remember people’s remarks when 1984 rolled around. Look, they said, 1984 isn’t like the book “1984″. It’s Morning in America. In my opinion, it wasn’t Morning in America then, and it isn’t Morning in America now. “1984″ is coming. My advice in general is that the “sides” I often see don’t need to put aside their differences, but they do need to find common ground when it comes to things that are going to affect everybody’s lives for quite a long time.
17 Jon Quimbly // Oct 24, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Check out this article for just how 1984 the UK have gone-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25surveillance.html?pagewanted=2&hp
“They said my privacy wasn’t intruded on because the surveillance was covert.”
Wow. I mean, fucking wow. Local school bureacrats in UK have the power to covertly spy upon law-abiding citizens? Tap their internet connections, review their phone calls, videotape them…?
To say their privacy was not violated because the spying was done covertly… can you say doublespeak? Blackwhite? Is Ingsoc already here?
Doubleplus ungood.
Leave a Comment