# Police seize cameras



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

More evidence of a police state affecting photography? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438628.stm


----------



## Prism Detailing (Jun 8, 2006)

I think its more a case of the officers being unsure of what to do, so its better to do something and cause no harm than to do nothing and being critisised for something more serious....


----------



## INWARD123 (Oct 28, 2007)

The law is very ambiguous on the subject as the there is no privacy law rather the use of anti-terror or tresspass and seizure. talk photography has the officialpolice line on their forum as with everything people want officicers out on the streets not reading and studying law books !


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

The Royals had asked the Paparazzi and newspaper editors to respect their privacy, so the Police confiscate all the cameras belonging to the crowd outside the church in Sandringham  :wall: Really intelligent that, especially as it was being covered by the telly cameras as usual. Muppets. 

I can't get my head around why all this harrassment is going on to be honest, there's not much evidence of terrorists using cameras to plot anything - the pictures shown recently allegedly showing reconnaisance photos and film taken by a 'potential' terrorist didn't show anything that would be of much use, (blimey, a map of the underground, you'd need to take a photo of that alright to plan anything, it's pretty hard to come by that sort of info after all isn't it...) and the blokes weren't done for any terrorist offences anyway. The paranoia in me makes me wonder why they so gleefully showed those films and photos, when they weren't terrorists anyway, almost as if they had finally found an excuse or a reason for all this nonsense, even though it was so very lame.
Why do they generally stop only people with DSLRs? Obviously terrorists only use DSLRs, just like terrorists have never heard of Google  They leave peeps with compacts and phone cameras alone in most cases, it just doesn't make sense.
It all seems rather narrow minded, utterly pointless and totally without commonsense, and despite all the guidelines being issued and what not, it's still happening fairly frequently. Beats me, it really does, but it's all getting a bit Big Brothery in this country now.


----------



## GS300 (Dec 16, 2007)

Another example


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

I think in that case it's someone somewhere deciding "but the rules state x" where the rules have been ignored for a looong time. There's a slight difference IMO between asking 'togs to abide by the rules on a personal estate and giving people hassle for taking pics in a public place like Trafalgar Square.

Bret


----------



## Crafty (Aug 4, 2007)

http://photographernotaterrorist.org/


----------

