Cory is being a little sensationalist, and in summarising him TechDirt have gone beyond sensational into flat out wrong.
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.
Cory is being a little sensationalist, and in summarising him TechDirt have gone beyond sensational into flat out wrong.
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.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Nigel.
Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way Techdirt
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.
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.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Nigel.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt