UK: You Can't Photograph Sensitive Buildings; Photogs: Which Are Sensitive? UK: That's Classified
from the catch-22 dept
Boing Boing points to the rather ridiculous news that certain "sensitive" areas of the UK are banned to photographers, but when The British Journal of Photography tried to find out which "sensitive" sites to avoid, the request was rejected. Apparently even telling you what sites you can't photograph is too sensitive. Of course, that leaves photographers in a bit of a Catch-22, as they don't know whether or not a site is photographable until the police tell them they can't photograph it and they may have violated some law in doing so. But... of course, with no list to check on, the police can simply claim any building is off-limits. On top of that, as Cory Doctorow points out:There's no evidence that terrorists use photographs to plan attacks. Indeed, if disclosing the visible features of notable, iconic buildings puts them in danger, we may as well tear them all down now and get it over with, since the whole point of a notable, iconic building is that everybody knows what they look like.Blind paranoia with a healthy dosage of security theater doesn't stop terrorism. Update: A good comment from Nigel (though, with unnecessary nastiness towards us) goes into more detail explaining what's happening. It's not specifically that photographing certain sites is barred, but that the police have extra powers for search and seizure in certain areas -- and taking photographs is more likely to get police involved in those areas. It's those areas that are considered classified. So, not quite the same thing as the original report, though close. Thanks for the clarification, Nigel!
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: catch-22, photography, sensitive sites, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you blame them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you blame them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you blame them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you blame them...
Their apparently low appreciation for personal liberty makes we wonder if the US shouldn't have just let the Nazis have them. If this is the way they're going to be, then what the hell did all those US soldiers die for defending them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you blame them...
You mean, besides the fact that most of the Nazi leadership had banking and funding interests in England that would have allowed them to wage war against America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do the illustrious leaders of this world ever stop to think things through before enacting laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coppers too
Welcome to 1984, Papers please citizen.
Be glad you have constitution over there guys & gals coz I'm afraid the UK just plain sucks over here.
If you want to really know how bad it is over here i recommend a visit to:
http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/
Though be warned, this site is now KNOWN to be monitored by our stazi government. I suggest you "proxy" to it.
Edit: Just read "Ima Fish". pretty much sums it up over here.
Peace out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't photograph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the whole world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A cunning plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't let the facts get in the way Techdirt
No areas of the UK are banned to photographers and there's no list of buildings you can't photograph (although I imagine some of our military bases wouldn't be too welcoming, but that's not what we're talking about here).
What there is is a law, Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows the authorities to designate areas in which police have enhanced stop and search powers.
This is not aimed specifically at photographers and AFAIK there is no suggestion that a Section 44 designation prohibits the taking of photographs in the area. However in practise someone taking photographs in an area is more likely to attract the attention of a bored or over zealous constable than someone just passing through, and is thus more likely to be stopped and searched using Section 44 powers.
Thus the BJoP were trying to find out where in the country Section 44 powers are currently in force, and it is this information which has been denied.
This does obviously raise a serious problem, but it's not the one your article suggests - if I as a citizen cannot find out where Section 44 powers apply how can I know if a PC claiming to be exercising those powers is telling the truth?
There's plenty to criticise about this and other UK anti-terrorism laws and the more people that hear about it the better, but inaccurate articles like this one help nobody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't let the facts get in the way Techdirt
I do not think that is quite true. A few years ago a student from Northern Kentucky University who was on a study abroad trip in London that compared the US legal system to the parliament. When on the trip the student took pics in the subway (it is not allowed signs are posted although). When he arrived at the next stop the police were waiting for him. He was escorted to a back room for questioning and had him pictures confiscated, a little while later he was released with a warning and threat of jail if it happened again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't let the facts get in the way Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't let the facts get in the way Techdirt
No areas of the UK are banned to photographers and there's no list of buildings you can't photograph (although I imagine some of our military bases wouldn't be too welcoming, but that's not what we're talking about here).
What there is is a law, Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows the authorities to designate areas in which police have enhanced stop and search powers.
This is not aimed specifically at photographers and AFAIK there is no suggestion that a Section 44 designation prohibits the taking of photographs in the area. However in practise someone taking photographs in an area is more likely to attract the attention of a bored or over zealous constable than someone just passing through, and is thus more likely to be stopped and searched using Section 44 powers.
Thus the BJoP were trying to find out where in the country Section 44 powers are currently in force, and it is this information which has been denied.
This does obviously raise a serious problem, but it's not the one your article suggests - if I as a citizen cannot find out where Section 44 powers apply how can I know if a PC claiming to be exercising those powers is telling the truth?
There's plenty to criticise about this and other UK anti-terrorism laws and the more people that hear about it the better, but inaccurate articles like this one help nobody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"What building can I photograph?"
"I cant tell you that sir, its illegal"
"under what law?"
"I cant tell you that sir, its also illegal"
"Sigh, what would you charge me with if I were to take a photo of the building over there?"
"Braking the law sir, please move on"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peace in our time....HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now if your using a 2 foot lens to zoom in on a military base from a hill overlooking the base then someone might have something to say, but even then there is little to stop your immages from going right to flicker (or even to a large email list) Film is just a good backup now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]