Amateur Photographer Detained for 'Camera License' Interrogation

[RobRich]

If you are thinking China or North Korea, you are not even close. Try the United Kingdom.

Phil Smith thought ex-EastEnder Letitia Dean turning on the Christmas lights in Ipswich would make a good snap for his collection.

The 49-year-old started by firing off a few shots of the warm-up act on stage. But before the main attraction showed up, Mr Smith was challenged by a police officer who asked if he had a licence for the camera.

After explaining he didn't need one, he was taken down a side-street for a formal "stop and search", then asked to delete the photos and ordered not take any more. So he slunk home with his camera.

[....]

Steve Carroll was another hapless victim of this growing suspicion. Police seized the film from his camera while he was out taking snaps in a Hull shopping centre. They later returned it but a police investigation found they had acted correctly because he appeared to be taking photographs covertly.

[....]

And under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, police officers may randomly stop someone without reasonable suspicion, providing the area has been designated a likely target for an attack.

Source: BBC

[MadMan2k]

It's too bad. The world's not a friendly place for photography in public anymore, and it's not getting any better. Most people expect people with cameras to conform to their idea of where one should take photographs, and the ones who *think* they have some authority, and sometimes those who actually do, take it upon themselves to harass photographers who don't conform to that.


Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard of a case where a private business owner set up high-resolution security cameras on their property but viewing public space? I'm sure it's being done, and since it's just as legal as shooting a handheld camera, the police are probably less likely to do anything about it since there's no one there to harass.

[SiliconJon]

"Because there is a war on for your mind."