Police: Photographers should carry identification

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve Smith said:
It hasn't been made compulsory. It has just been suggested that it would be a good idea.

Your points are valid though. Anyone can get I.D. All it shows is who you are though. It doesn't mark you out as terrorist, burglar, or paedophile even if you are.

If a police officer is investigating a photographer, possibly from a call from the public or a security guard, the person's identity is not relevant.

Once the officer has ascertained that the activity is perfectly legal, that is the end of the matter. There is no need for the officer to know the photographer's identity.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Bingo! That's what I'm driving at.
 
Rob.Marsh said:
I would like to see a stat though that shows out of all SLR owners/pro/amateur photographers, what percentage have been stopped and challenged, and how many have had big issues.

We only see the problems talked about in the media.
Click to expand...

I would think that if put into percentage terms it would be negligible. Also, just about every case I have ever read about has ended up with the police issuing an apology and admitting that they had been heavy handed.


Steve.
 
Steve, agree entirely.

But if asked, why argue and refuse to show? That doesn't look good, and if I were a cop, would seem suspicious. Thats all I am getting at. Why argue if your not doing anything wrong.
 
boyfalldown said:
...to my mind if you no longer have a genuinely open society but one where a culture of fear exists instead then you've allowed the terrorists to win

Hugh
Click to expand...

Hugh, I think that on balance, if you look around (and actually just read this thread) you will see that they have already won. ID or no ID, liberty or no liberty, the battle is longtime over and all that's left is the pointless shouting about it. I have never been stopped, if I were then that's fine, I would rather see *some* evidence of law enforcement and protection than none at all...

Let me take you back to when I was damn near killed by riding my motorcycle into string/wire across the road. as I lay on the road with my Dream-machine paint job spread over the tarmac, three giggling kids ran off. Calling the police got the reply:

"We cannot have anyone there until tomorrow afternoon sir..."
"OK, well, I am off to the pub the get drunk and calm my nerves - then maybe I'll drive home."
"I would not advise that sir, you will get stopped and banned from driving"
"OK, then can you get the team that will stop and breathalyse me to call me this evening than?"
"Sorry sir - it does not work that way"

Think yourselves lucky you do not live in Norfolk!

Arthur
 
I've said this before, when does it become an issue? Say you are in London taking photographs, you are walking along the street and a policeman asks what you are doing and wants to look through your photos, fine, you take 5 minutes out and show him, give him your details and go on your merry way. You continue down the street and come across another policeman, PCSO or whatever. They stop you and ask what you are doing, they take your ID to have a look and check what is on your camera. 5 minutes later you are on your way. You walk round the corner, it's another policeman, he stops you and asks what you are doing......you get where I am going with this.

At which point does it become unacceptable, because as far as I am concerned, as soon as you say it is fine for the first policeman to check then there should be no issue with every single policeman you walk past that sees you with a DSLR stopping you, getting your details and checking through the images on your camera.

I have a fundamental issue with being stopped for doing something that is perfectly legal and as has been said many many times before has never been linked to a single large terrorist attack.

As has also been said before, one of the many aims of terrorism is the spread of fear and the disruption of our everyday lives. Having our own civil liberties clamped down is certainly a victory for the terrorists.
 
See previous point... if I see one policeman a week that's good going around here. You live in/vist the big city and you take what goes with the territory as far as I can see.

Arthur
 
Being ex police I can see the both sides of the coin here but I have to say that I fall firmly on the side of "I'm not doing anything illegal nor suspicious so why should I have my liberties curtailed?"

The London bombers carried rucksacks yet I don't see any evidence of everyone carrying a rucksack being stopped. There has never been an established link between photography and terrorism and the footage that a P&S and a mobile phone can shoot is just as viable as anything we are likely to shoot.

IMHO it comes from the top, individual Police officers are simply following orders and those orders are probably to reassure the public. The "Be seen to be doing something" rationale. If it p***es off a few innocent photographers then they will see that as being a small price to pay and we are the victims of that.

So no, I don't and won't carry ID. Because it's my right not to. :)
 
AliB said:
Being ex police I can see the both sides of the coin here but I have to say that I fall firmly on the side of "I'm not doing anything illegal nor suspicious so why should I have my liberties curtailed?"

The London bombers carried rucksacks yet I don't see any evidence of everyone carrying a rucksack being stopped. There has never been an established link between photography and terrorism and the footage that a P&S and a mobile phone can shoot is just as viable as anything we are likely to shoot.

IMHO it comes from the top, individual Police officers are simply following orders and those orders are probably to reassure the public. The "Be seen to be doing something" rationale. If it p***es off a few innocent photographers then they will see that as being a small price to pay and we are the victims of that.

So no, I don't and won't carry ID. Because it's my right not to. :)
Click to expand...

Woot! ra ra ra...:clap:
 
May I ask what the situation would be with regards to film photography? I've never personally been stopped by the police yet, and as it happens I usually carry my driving licence on me anyway. I appreciate digital photographers can show their images if asked to do so by the police, but in the case of film users, what could the police do? My apologies if this has already been asked.
 
In my job as a press photographer, i have photographed many MP's in and around the Palace of Westminster/Houses of Parliment. I have even taken MP's across the river to the south side and photographed them with the houses of parliment in the background. I have never been questioned or stopped from photographing by any police/pcso officer. I even carry all my gear in a large rucksack.

The best bit of lack of security at the Palace of Westminster was when i drove up to the main gates in a big old green rover car, owned by the company i worked for, the police on the front gate thought it was an official government ministers car and waved me through without checking who i was. Airey Neave comes to mind and that was only four years ago.
 
Carl V said:
I appreciate digital photographers can show their images if asked to do so by the police, but in the case of film users, what could the police do?
Click to expand...

Whilst the police can ask to see images, they cannot demand it. I suppose you could offer to let them see them once you have processed the film!


Steve.
 
They actually need to obtain a court order to see them :)

Another benefit of film if you ask me ;)
 
AliB said:
They actually need to obtain a court order to see them :)

Another benefit of film if you ask me ;)
Click to expand...

They could get a court order then process your film for you. I don't think they would take an order for prints though!


Steve.
 
The club I belong to reccomends carrying the club membership card when doing any urban photography.It isn,t an official document but it is usually the only bit of identification I have on me.Up to now I have never been challenged.
 
Steve Smith said:
They could get a court order then process your film for you. I don't think they would take an order for prints though!


Steve.
Click to expand...

:naughty:

They could always confiscate an enlarger, no sense of enterprise these days! :suspect:
 
Only read the front page of this thread due to idiotic people throwing silly comments around left right and centre (EG- police only target "pro gear" and "wear a burka and you'll get away with it"). Watch the video! - tourist were stopped, did they have "pro gear"? And the burka comment is just racist bull.

I would advise the idiots on this thread to take it a little bit more seriously, after all there is a lot a stake. If we all kick off whenever anyone questions us they will just introduce a blanket zero tolerance approach and street photography will become an arrestable offence.

What is the problem with showing a bit of I.D? or being polite to the security guards?

GROW UP FOR FORK@S SAKE!
 
Carl V said:
May I ask what the situation would be with regards to film photography?
Click to expand...

You have an argument with the official in question about how your camera isn't digital and so you can't show them the photos right here and now.

This goes on until either the armed response unit turns up and/or you get loaded into a van for "being lippy" :help:
 
bomberman said:
Only read the front page of this thread due to idiotic people throwing silly comments around left right and centre (EG- police only target "pro gear" and "wear a burka and you'll get away with it"). Watch the video! - tourist were stopped, did they have "pro gear"? And the burka comment is just racist bull.

I would advise the idiots on this thread to take it a little bit more seriously, after all there is a lot a stake. If we all kick off whenever anyone questions us they will just introduce a blanket zero tolerance approach and street photography will become an arrestable offence.

What is the problem with showing a bit of I.D? or being polite to the security guards?

GROW UP FOR FORK@S SAKE!
Click to expand...

cheer.gif
cheer.gif


What he said.


Arthur
 
With the freedom of information laws I wonder if it is possible to get records of the number of people who were stopped for using a camera asked for their ID etc. and found to be terrorists. My guess will be none.
 
AliB said:
They actually need to obtain a court order to see them :)

Another benefit of film if you ask me ;)
Click to expand...

Steve Smith said:
They could get a court order then process your film for you. I don't think they would take an order for prints though!


Steve.
Click to expand...

desantnik said:
You have an argument with the official in question about how your camera isn't digital and so you can't show them the photos right here and now.

This goes on until either the armed response unit turns up and/or you get loaded into a van for "being lippy" :help:
Click to expand...


Thank you. I was just wondering in case I was ever approached by a policeman. I'd always co-operate and show my driving licence if I had it on me at the time, but I suspect the police won't come across many film users nowadays.
 
AliB said:
The London bombers carried rucksacks yet I don't see any evidence of everyone carrying a rucksack being stopped.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen it for a while but in the period after 7/7 I did see people with rucksacks being stopped by British Transport Police including one guy at king's cross who had to empty his entire luggage on the station concourse and then re-pack.
 
bomberman said:
Only read the front page of this thread due to idiotic people throwing silly comments around left right and centre (EG- police only target "pro gear" and "wear a burka and you'll get away with it"). Watch the video! - tourist were stopped, did they have "pro gear"? And the burka comment is just racist bull.

I would advise the idiots on this thread to take it a little bit more seriously, after all there is a lot a stake. If we all kick off whenever anyone questions us they will just introduce a blanket zero tolerance approach and street photography will become an arrestable offence.

What is the problem with showing a bit of I.D? or being polite to the security guards?

GROW UP FOR FORK@S SAKE!
Click to expand...

not about growing up - and I'll always remain polite, but as you say there is a lot at stake, and if you wish to give up your liberties by stages thats up to you - but if you think this is OK, how long before a licence comes next and then a ban?? - as I've said I'm not legally required to carry ID, and the suggestion the as part of any group of people I need to carry some is not a good one

Hugh
 
The usual response to carrying ID is the "you don't have to worry if you've got nothing to hide" theory.

So lets see how far we should go:

1. ID cards with your name and address
2. RF ID which you carry (or have implanted) so you can be scanned for details.
3. Tracking device so the authorities can see where you are at any time.

You could state that if you have done nothing wrong then there is nothing to worry about with all three of these options but at which point do you draw the line?


Steve.
 
A very paranoid response steve smith. we are talking an isolated number of cases where people have refused to be courteous to security guards which has resulted in hassle from the police, followed up by the devisive media whipping us all up into a frenzy and drawing unneccessary attention to photographers in the city.

Try not to blow it out of proportion
 
bomberman said:
A very paranoid response steve smith. we are talking an isolated number of cases where people have refused to be courteous to security guards which has resulted in hassle from the police, followed up by the devisive media whipping us all up into a frenzy and drawing unneccessary attention to photographers in the city.

Try not to blow it out of proportion
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I think if you read other posts you will see that I also think it is a very minor problem which has been blown out of proportion.

My point was just to back up my thoughts that although I will happily carry ID and show it if requested, I would not want that to be a requirement in law.

p.s. I like the context of your 'blowing it out of proportion' comment and your user name!


Steve.
 
bomberman said:
A very paranoid response steve smith. we are talking an isolated number of cases where people have refused to be courteous to security guards which has resulted in hassle from the police, followed up by the devisive media whipping us all up into a frenzy and drawing unneccessary attention to photographers in the city.

Try not to blow it out of proportion
Click to expand...

without meaning to be funny, but what reason do you have to show anything to a security guard outside of their place of work?
 
lol my user name is a mountain biking reference steve :)

without meaning to be funny, but what reason do you have to show anything to a security guard outside of their place of work?
Click to expand...

none, but they are only doing their job in light of horrific london bombings and the more cagey you are with them the more reason they have to be suspicious and give you a hard time. This is all common sense, no?
 
bomberman said:
A very paranoid response steve smith. we are talking an isolated number of cases where people have refused to be courteous to security guards which has resulted in hassle from the police, followed up by the devisive media whipping us all up into a frenzy and drawing unneccessary attention to photographers in the city.

Try not to blow it out of proportion
Click to expand...

I'll ignore the name-calling and 'grow-up' comments above as this is a very grown-up debate. As for your suggestion that we simply kow-tow to 'authority' and not question them for fear of greater inconvenience, this IS a democracy and those in authority are elected to serve us. We don't exist for them to suppress.

Now perhaps you can explain why I should be answerable to a security guard privately employed by a bank because I'm taking photos of a church next door?

And note again - all of the 7/7 bombers had genuine UK ID and no criminal records. All of them.
 
bomberman said:
lol my user name is a mountain biking reference steve :)



none, but they are only doing their job in light of horrific london bombings and the more cagey you are with them the more reason they have to be suspicious and give you a hard time. This is all common sense, no?
Click to expand...

no they're not - what part of a security guard's job involves entering a public place and asking another member of society to account for a perfectly lawful action? Common sense dictate being polite, but if approached in a public place by a security guard I'll politey decline thanks

H
 
Now perhaps you can explain why I should be answerable to a security guard privately employed by a bank because I'm taking photos of a church next door?
Click to expand...

you talk like it was YOU who got stopped.


The post of mine which you were refering to was a question not a statement so I don't see how it could be paranoid
Click to expand...

lets not argue about semantics

I've made my point, not here to argue. I'll leave you lot to chat now.
 
my main problem with threads like this is people telling others to grow up, you're not our parents and you're not the national measure of maturity.

people are entitled to their opinions retrospectively perhaps it's the others that should "grow up"
 
The sense of reason.
I have to agree entirely with your points here.

Tony






Marcus Geezer said:
In a perfect world I completely agree. I would love to be able to walk down any road in any place, set up my camera, tripod and take pics of anything and everything I see without a care in the world.

Unfortunately we live in a world where idiots think that threatening our security with anything from basic crime such as theft right up to major terrorist attacks will make at least their own little world a better place, so we have to bear the brunt of living in what some people call a police state, whereas others would call it enhanced security.

I know it isnt always this cut and dry, but at least showing your willing to be co-operative to any 'official' by showing ID, being polite and pleasant, normally means that they'll leave you to carry on with your business.
Click to expand...
 
bomberman said:
Only read the front page of this thread due to idiotic people throwing silly comments around left right and centre

GROW UP FOR FORK@S SAKE!
Click to expand...

Pot Kettle Black there Bomberman!

And the problem with showing ID to any idiot who thinks they have a right to demand it is that

a) I don't have to carry ID in the first place and I won't be made to by stealth.

b) I don't have to show any ID to Police never mind PCSOs and security guards. What do security guards do with my information anyway because they have no legitimate means of recording it!

c)What we are doing is a perfectly legal and reasonable activity as is wearing a hat in a public place or stepping on the cracks in the pavement.

These are our civil liberties and unlike America where there is a constitution which allows certain freedoms we actually have none in legislation. The entirety of English Law is based on exclusion. "It is an offence to..."

And these small liberties are worth preserving.

Perhaps when you reach my age you will realise that. Now run along and be a good boy ;)
 
Rob.Marsh said:
I would like to see a stat though that shows out of all SLR owners/pro/amateur photographers, what percentage have been stopped and challenged, and how many have had big issues.
Click to expand...
Well, we don't have all that detail, but we do have a poll of TP members to see how many have personally been stopped by the police. (About 20%.)

I set up the poll and I'm afraid it didn't occur to me to also ask how many of those were conducting terrorist reconnaissance at the time.
 
AliB said:
Pot Kettle Black there Bomberman!

And the problem with showing ID to any idiot who thinks they have a right to demand it is that

a) I don't have to carry ID in the first place and I won't be made to by stealth.

b) I don't have to show any ID to Police never mind PCSOs and security guards. What do security guards do with my information anyway because they have no legitimate means of recording it!

c)What we are doing is a perfectly legal and reasonable activity as is wearing a hat in a public place or stepping on the cracks in the pavement.

These are our civil liberties and unlike America where there is a constitution which allows certain freedoms we actually have none in legislation. The entirety of English Law is based on exclusion. "It is an offence to..."

And these small liberties are worth preserving.

Perhaps when you reach my age you will realise that. Now run along and be a good boy ;)
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said.... apart from stepping on the cracks in the pavement.


Steve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top