longname Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>Bryce I wouldn't say stupidity, they have a job to do too.<br> It is a valid concern however when the law makes a widespread behaviour done by perfectly law abiding people into a suspicious activity. <br /> <br /> I was at the RNC demonstrations and I didn't take any pictures of the police officers because I had heard that you could get arrested and your cameras confiscated for doing it. I don't think police officers have any right to anonymity, and they do not need it in order to do their job. I think a faceless anonymous police force is a very dangerous thing. If they did need anonymity then they wouldn't wear uniforms and badges. They would be in trench coats, driving black cars, coming in at night.</p> <p>The issue of intimidation is a joke, in my opinion. They have the law on their side and are even given special considerations by the law. A picture doesn't intimidate against doing the right thing, it intimidates against people breaking the law, police officers or private citizens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndt_photo Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>As a photographer at the RNC last year I am glad this law isn't on the books here in the US. I wasn't present for the scuffles that went down the next day but on Labor Day the crowds were huge and peaceful and the riot cops were ready. It took a deep breath to take my first shots of these guys up close but they mostly ignored my existence. I was also ready to defend my rights had anything gone down.</p> <p>Maybe had the crap hit the fan I would have been hassled more, I dunno...</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndt_photo Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>And another more up close & personal...</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonmestrom Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>polarisation, polarisation,</p> <p>To bring some nuance in this discussion I would like to add that the London police in my experience is actually very polite, friendly and forthcoming.</p> <p>What is worrying is not so much that it would rob any street photographer from real or alleged rights but it is telling of the widespread paranoia that is now symptomatic in a lot of our Western democracies. Look at the PA in the US for instance the implications of which are more farreaching than the above mentioned amendment. But although we can blame the government for actually stimulating that sense of paranoia, willingly or not, I leave that to your judgment, the vox populi in a lot of countries is not that different. People nowadays react in a more emotional than rational way so it's easy to condemn the above but most people are actually not that different.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mt4x4 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>This brings up a memory of the photo taken by a man at a parade in England in the 70's or 80's. He snapped a picture of the Queen on horseback. It just so happened that another man had decided it would be a good prank to fire blanks at the Queen in a fake assassination attempt.<br /> <br /> The photog didn't realize what he had until he had arrived home and developed the film, to find a picture of the gunman standing directly in front of him, with the gun pointed at the Queen. The photo was used to find the man who fired the gun.<br /> <br /> Now...any parade with the Queen has lots of police officers...and I am sure that the photographer had snapped a couple of shots with them included. Should he be arrested, or commended?<br /> <br /> Treating anyone with a camera as a terrorist is just ridiculous. Not to mention, would a terrorist really draw attention to themselves by using a large DSLR? Or would they use a camera on a cell phone, which would probably not be noticed anyways. It looks as if the wrong people are getting punished in this situation.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon DAmato Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p><img src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/moz-screenshot.jpg" alt="" /> <img src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/moz-screenshot-1.jpg" alt="" /> <img src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/moz-screenshot-2.jpg" alt="" /></p> <blockquote> <p>Tell that to the people who see terrorists everywhere.</p> </blockquote> <p>Please explain.</p> <p>I thought that was pretty clear, but to explain, your odds of being in a terrorist attack are very small-- maybe on the scale of winning the lottery, as you claim an arrest for photography of a policeman would be.</p> <blockquote> <p>OK, based on those occurrences, you really believe we are living in a <em>police state</em> ?</p> </blockquote> <p>Not if your definition of a police state is the holocaust, as you stated. So, let's get a definition of police state.</p> <p>From answers.com:<br> "A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force."<br> "A nation whose rulers maintain order and obedience by the threat of police or military force; one with a brutal, arbitrary government."</p> <p>I don't see anything about the holocaust here.</p> <p>More from wikipedia<br> "The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement."<br> "One way to view the concept of the police state and the free state is through the medium of a balance or scale, where any law focused on removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state..."<br> "The <a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/united-kingdom" target="_top" >United Kingdom</a> is felt by some to be moving quickly in the direction of a police state,<sup id="cite_ref-6" ><a href="http://www.answers.com/police%20state#cite_note-6">[ 7] </a> </sup> with biometric identity cards,<sup id="cite_ref-7" ><a href="http://www.answers.com/police%20state#cite_note-7">[ 8] </a> </sup> <sup id="cite_ref-8" ><a href="http://www.answers.com/police%20state#cite_note-8">[ 9] </a> </sup> <a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/mass-surveillance" target="_top" >continuous surveillance</a> and long term detainment without trial all having been introduced by the government. The UK has been described as "the most surveilled country".<sup id="cite_ref-9" ><a href="http://www.answers.com/police%20state#cite_note-9">[ 10] </a> </sup> Peaceful protests within a half-mile radius of the <a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/palace-of-westminster" target="_top" >Houses of Parliament</a> are illegal in the UK unless authorised by the <a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/metropolitan-police-service" target="_top" >Metropolitan Police</a> .<sup id="cite_ref-10" ><a href="http://www.answers.com/police%20state#cite_note-10">[ 11] </a> </sup> Claims of police state behaviour have been dismissed by the UK government.<sup id="cite_ref-11" ><a href="http://www.answers.com/police%20state#cite_note-11">[ 12] </a> </sup><br> The <a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states" target="_top" >United States</a> has been accused of moving towards a police state. On June 27, 2002 US Congressman <a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/ron-paul" target="_top" >Ron Paul</a> said in the <a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/house-of-representatives" target="_top" >House of Representatives</a> : "...'Is America a Police State?' My answer is: 'Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching.'"<sup id="cite_ref-12" ><a href="http://www.answers.com/police%20state#cite_note-12">[ 13]" </a> </sup></p> <blockquote></blockquote> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgars_kalnins Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>I was searched by police and my details taken when I did some shots in east london. what if I used wide angle and got some cops in the shot! I dont want to worry about being detained when taking pictures.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>here in beautiful oakland, we have recently had the pleasure of having riots (the media's term) or rebellion (PC community-preferred term) over the shooting death of a young black male by a transit cop. the cop shot the unarmed kid in the back after another cop threatened to tase him, punched him in the face, kneed him, and stepped on his neck while he was on the ground. lovely.</p> <p>the event and its aftermath attracted national coverage--especially after a cell phone video emerged clearly showing the shooting, which has been described as looking like an "execution"--btw the cops tried to confiscate cel phones at the scene, but neglected to call the paramedics as the young man lay bleeding to death. there have been several other mostly-peaceful protests since demanding accountability, but the mainstream media continues to focus on the few incidents of vandalism and property damage, repeatedly showing the same footage over and over. IMO anyone not clear that there are less differences between Gaza and any major urban city is woefully naive. as dead prez put it, "<em>we're living in a police state/can you relate</em> ?"</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>there's little question that putting on riot gear does something to one's humanity...</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>and...</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w_t1 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>y'all should come to Seattle, I see people all the time posing for pics with the horse police in particular...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick j dempsey Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>Anyone else find it ironic that one of England's most well known and probably most photographed tourist events is the changing of the guard outside of Buckinham palace?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy_english Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>NOT ONE COMMENT ON THE BASIC ISSUE!<br> The entire issue of "terrorism" is being mishandled. Terrorism is a tactic employed by your enemy. Beating your home population up is not fighting that enemy. Until you can bring yourself to name the enemy in a non euphimistic way (not politically correct) and rid your country of them you will have to cower in fear.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p><em>there is no need to assume that the average bobby on the beat is a fascist plod.</em><br> <em></em><br> No one is. It just takes a few to use "terrorism" and vague statutes as an excuse to bring trumped charges or be abusive to others. Sorry but it happens.</p> <p><em>I spent a good few hours walking around London's South Bank with a Minolta film camera in plain view and nobody was interested or even gave it a second look.</em><br> <em></em><br> Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen. This self statistic is meaningless as a statistic. Just because you and others that you saw weren't mugged in the big city doesn't mean muggings do not occur.</p> <p><em>No point being paranoid about something that is about as likely as winning the lottery jackpot.</em><br> <em></em><br> I've been stopped and questioned more than once. If that analogy had any merit, we should all start playing the lottery.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>>>> Not if your definition of a police state is the holocaust, as you stated. So, let's get a definition of police state.</p> <p>As I so stated? Huh??? Nice straw-man and nice try. Nowhere did I say the definition of a police state is the Holocaust. Everybody knows the definition. And suggested the OP talk to Holocaust survivors to get avery personal understanding of what living and suffering under a real police state is about before tossing the term around so casually. BTW, it's more than "living in a death camp," as you suggested.</p> <p>>>> I don't see anything about the holocaust here.</p> <p>Of course not - that's silly. See above.<br> Perhaps you can relate your own personal experiences and repression suffered living in a police state...</p> www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>" FWIW, there's a HUGE difference between being a victim of police abuse and living in a police state"</p> <p>"you really believe we are living in a <em>police state</em> ?"</p> <p>" Police state indeed. Go talk to some Holocaust survivors"</p> <p>"Perhaps you can relate your own personal experiences and repression suffered living in a police state..."</p> <p>what exactly is your point, Brad?</p> <p>maybe you dont personally know anyone who's been detained/deported/shot/had their civil rights violated by law enforcement recently, but it's not like people are just fantasizing about the erosion of civil liberties because they have nothing else to do.</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>"BTW, it's more than "living in a death camp," as you suggested."</p> <p>what if your city is becoming a "death camp" right in front of your eyes? is it "silly" then?</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>and what if your city became a police state--with terrorism directed against certain individuals in certain parts of town or with a certain ethnic background--and no one bothered to document it, broadcast it, file suit against it, or protest it? why quibble about the definition of a Holocaust or argue over what constitutes a police state at all? that's like the UN Security Council arguing over what constitutes genocide as an excuse not to intervene in Darfur.</p> <p>human rights dont mean much if we don't exercise our entitlement to them, do they?</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longname Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>About the police state issue: One could argue that the Holocaust was the end result of living in a police state. Much like the frog in the pot analogy, concentration and death camps didn't just suddenly happen. Society had to allow, and accept, the actions of the state.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon DAmato Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>A direct quote:<br> This is all so silly. Police state indeed. Go talk to some Holocaust survivors and then you might have a better and much more personal understanding of that term.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>" Society had to allow, and accept, the actions of the state."</p> <p>i'd agree with you, al--which is where street photography, independent media, and other forms of citizen journalism can play a role in ensuring people don't turn a blind eye to injustice as it happens.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>"concentration and death camps didn't just suddenly happen. Society had to allow, and accept, the actions of the state."</p> <p>True, Al. Hitler didn't start killing all the Jews (and other racial minorities), dissidents, homosexuals, cripples, non-Christians, mentally ill, mentally retarded, and others the day he came to power -- or even within his first 100 days. It was long, slippery slope of many years. Every step of the insane slide was logical and justifiable from within the warped perspective of the ailing German society. Civil liberties once enjoyed in Germany were suspended in the name of ensuring the safety and security of the German people from the elements supposedly hell-bent on their destruction. We're obviously not there, but we've been walking down the road. I, for one, don't like where we are.</p> <p>I've never been attacked by a terrorist. I've never met a terrorist. I've never seen a terrorist. Nobody I know (personally) has been attacked by a terrorist or met one or seen one. The closest I come to experiencing terrorism is that a friend's attorney's brother was in the vicinity of the World Trade Center on 9-11 and witnessed the chaos. I never met him. I don't even know his name.</p> <p>By contrast, I do know someone who was detained and questioned because she made a joke in poor taste about Pres. Bush while talking on the telephone. My own children have apparently been unable to take any flight without being detained for questioning by authorities (not being 100% Caucasian), so they now prefer riding the bus. Fellow photographers on this forum report being harrassed by authorities for taking pictures at the wrong place and time. I face the day-to-day annoyances of living in a stupidly paranoid society, and I became aware a few years ago that I was (and probably still am) on a Congressional watch list of some sort, in relation to civil rights activism in which I was once involved.</p> <p>Terrorists are the least of what I fear.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_devlin Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>Isn't the fact that New York City photographers were able to get the city's proposed restrictions tossed aside proof that many of us <em>are</em> standing up for our rights?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon DAmato Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Isn't the fact that New York City photographers were able to get the city's proposed restrictions tossed aside proof that many of us <em>are</em> standing up for our rights?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes. And this problem in the UK is another time people need to stand up.</p> <blockquote> </blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danbliss Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>In advance I apologize for venting: As a US citizen, I don't have much of right to make comments about freedoms in other countries. But, if I lived in Britain and I loved my county, then I'd be sending letters and giving money to whatever the equivalent of the ACLU is over there. Yes, terrorism is a serious threat, and it is horrible. I have no tolerance for it or for those who perpetrate it, but by terrorism's nature we tend to over estimate the risks associated with it. On the morning of 9/11, I was on the way to the air to the airport. I was scheduled to fly from Boston to LA. Had I picked the earlier fight, I would have been on one of the planes. Still, statistically, the cab ride to the airport was the greater threat. Each year in the US over 400,000 die because of heart disease, and nearly as many die of cancer. Each year in the US over 40,000 die in car accidents, and over 30,000 die from guns (mostly their own). Well over 1,000,000 children die of malaria in the world each year. Each of these deaths is a tragedy, particularly for those who are close to the individual who died. However, almost none of them will be reported on the nightly news. If it's weird or scary, then it shows up on the news. Consequently, we get a skewed sense of risk, and we overreact to the threat of terrorism. The next thing you know, some dimwit is trying to outlaw taking a picture instead of reducing fatty food consumption, exercising, and buying mosquito nets for children in poor countries... But, what do I know. -Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now