I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist

[expat]

An interesting website for any UK members. The number of people who are stopped under Section 44 of the terrorist act for taking pictures seems to be on the rise daily. Stop and search

Know you rights.

[machineman9]

I've seen plenty of threads saying 'I only have a few as I had to delete the rest'.

Are there any exceptions though? What about military bases or what about if the owners of the airport ask you to move? If you're outside the fence, are you not under their control?

[Craig.]

thanks to the wonders of technology even if you did have to delete them, any good free recovery software can save most if not all the pictures you have taken anyway.

[C]

Are there any exceptions though? What about military bases or what about if the owners of the airport ask you to move?

Refreshingly, the RAF and RAF Police, compared to some of their heavy handed civilian counterparts, have some rather progressive views on the whole matter:

It all started at RAF Coningsby - http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/estateandenvironment/planespottershelpprotectrafbase.htm

As long as you're sensible, obey any signage, don't damage fences etc, or photograph something you know is sensitive, it's almost encouraged. It's free publicity after all.

[CD.]

In my experience Gatwick police are the worst of the lot... I got moved on no more than 2 mins after setting up at the end of R26.
On the other hand, Heathrow police are very friendly. I've had advice where and where not to take photos.. not for security purposes, but for best views of landing/departing aircraft! 
When Concorde landed at LHR for the final time in 2003 the police were powerless dealing with the crowds but instead of being heavy handed went along with the party/celebration atmosphere. It made for a great day.. I shudder to think what would have happened at Gatwick, had it been there.. 

[The Ruptured Duck]

[quote]In my experience Gatwick police are the worst of the lot... I got moved on no more than 2 mins after setting up at the end of R26.
On the other hand, Heathrow police are very friendly. I've had advice where and where not to take photos.. not for security purposes, but for best views of landing/departing aircraft!

[Mictheslik]

You'll always get jobsworths...I've spent many an hour at Gatwick at that spot at the end of 26 and never been troubled by the police.....I think they only mind if you go across the ditch and stand right next to the fence....

LHR police are nice...they had to fill out this for about why they spoke to us, but were genuinely interested in why we did it ....same with Manchester (where the police actually wander the path around the runways and chat to everyone).

On the RAF police the same applies.....A good case I have in mind is at Lyneham, where one of the best spots is a amll track about 30 mins walk from the nearest parking space. I've had many RAF police visit me there and been chatty and willing to tell me when the scheduled movements are etc.....but have also heard quite a few stories of a particular officer who is determined to move as many people on as possible, threatening to call the police and confiscate cameras etc.

As a rule regardless of the law it's best to at least listen and discuss with the police, even if they are being very heavy handed. If it's a case of moving on to another spot, or putting the camera away for a few minutes then why not. You're not doing anything wrong, and he/she goes away satisfied that they may have had an impact...If you do feel you;ve been dealt with wrongly and it's the RAF police, a quick call to the PR officer for that station explaining what happened usually does the job...cerainly did at Lyneham

.mic

.mic

[skoker]

Do you know of an American version?

[Jeff.Guo]

Do you know of an American version?

Private property: Do as they say...

Public property: Tell the cop to f$#k off.

...I don't think any police officer is that unreasonable though. You're not REQUIRED to give any information, unless you're driving a vehicle. Under no circumstances are you required, or the officer is allowed, to delete ANYTHING. And, again, if you're in a public area, and presentable, you do not have to leave.

Still, if a officer asks, I'd say just cooperate. If its 3 in the afternoon, and you're sporting pajamas, turban, and a 3 year old beard next to an airport, I'd stop you too. And they usually have a good reason (security risk or otherwise) for why they don't want you there.

Oh, and keep in mind certain federal agents have the authority to detain you for 48 hours without cause, so don't piss them off.

[machineman9]

Under no circumstances are you required, or the officer is allowed, to delete ANYTHING.

...Because it is in the public domain, correct? They aren't hiding it, it is out there in the open so it is open to be photographed. The few exceptions I can think of are: Police officers, aircraft with secrets parts and I think a few buildings might be under protection from photography - Though I am not too sure about that. Rumour goes that the designs are already copywritten, so you can't 'copy' it. But I think creative rights of the individual might overpower that one.

If they try to delete it, they are trying to remove your intellectual property, which I would say is vandalism (but don't tell them that!)

[Hagar]

You'll always get jobsworths...

Indeed. I've met a few in my time. I've also met quite a few very objectionable photographers & spotters who give the hobby a bad name.

How you're treated might depend on your age & how you speak to the security people. I find that most of them are reasonable enough. After all, they're only doing their job. In the end I don't think photos of aeroplanes, however rare they might be, are worth being arrested for.

[Jeff.Guo]

Under no circumstances are you required, or the officer is allowed, to delete ANYTHING.

...Because it is in the public domain, correct? They aren't hiding it, it is out there in the open so it is open to be photographed. The few exceptions I can think of are: Police officers, aircraft with secrets parts and I think a few buildings might be under protection from photography - Though I am not too sure about that. Rumour goes that the designs are already copywritten, so you can't 'copy' it. But I think creative rights of the individual might overpower that one.

If they try to delete it, they are trying to remove your intellectual property, which I would say is vandalism (but don't tell them that!)

I was actually thinking more along the lines of if they don't charge you, they're not justified to do so; and if they do charge you, its obstruction.

...but yeah, they can't destroy your intellectual property.

And as far as the classified hardware, you would have to either know it is classified before hand or be told you're not allowed to photograph at that location in advance. There isn't anything stopping you from snipping at all our national secrets on the other side of the fence at Area 51 and selling it off to the North Koreans....except that you might burn in hell.

[expat]

Under no circumstances are you required, or the officer is allowed, to delete ANYTHING.

...Because it is in the public domain, correct? They aren't hiding it, it is out there in the open so it is open to be photographed. The few exceptions I can think of are: Police officers, aircraft with secrets parts and I think a few buildings might be under protection from photography - Though I am not too sure about that. Rumour goes that the designs are already copywritten, so you can't 'copy' it. But I think creative rights of the individual might overpower that one.

If they try to delete it, they are trying to remove your intellectual property, which I would say is vandalism (but don't tell them that!)

I was actually thinking more along the lines of if they don't charge you, they're not justified to do so; and if they do charge you, its obstruction.

...but yeah, they can't destroy your intellectual property.

And as far as the classified hardware, you would have to either know it is classified before hand or be told you're not allowed to photograph at that location in advance. There isn't anything stopping you from snipping at all our national secrets on the other side of the fence at Area 51 and selling it off to the North Koreans....except that you might burn in hell.

It has nothing to do with national secrets, public domain or intellectual property. If you are asked to delete a picture then you must have done something wrong in taking it in the first place. If a policeman asks you to delete it then he himself is commiting a crime by the destruction of evidence, a criminal offence in itself. The only person who can order the destruction of a picture (and due to undelete programs read as destruction of the card/disk) is a judge.

Matt

[Jeff.Guo]

It has nothing to do with national secrets, public domain or intellectual property. If you are asked to delete a picture then you must have done something wrong in taking it in the first place. If a policeman asks you to delete it then he himself is commiting a crime by the destruction of evidence, a criminal offence in itself. The only person who can order the destruction of a picture (and due to undelete programs read as destruction of the card/disk) is a judge.

If you're snipping shots away at a document that is clearly labeled "FOR EYES ONLY MOST SECRET" and get caught, that camera, and probably you, will both get shot, tried for treason, and thrown in Gitmo.

I don't know about English law, but here the offense is obstruction of justice. The offense is not insofar as the destruction of evidence (which would only constitute a civil case in most states, correct me if I'm wrong) but the hindrance to the prosecution or the defense.

...and as a point of clarification, it is not ILLEGAL for a police officer to ask you to do anything. It only becomes illegal when one of you acts. Just about the only things that an officer can't do is violate due process and lie...and, of course, anything that is explicitly illegal.

[expat]

It has nothing to do with national secrets, public domain or intellectual property. If you are asked to delete a picture then you must have done something wrong in taking it in the first place. If a policeman asks you to delete it then he himself is commiting a crime by the destruction of evidence, a criminal offence in itself. The only person who can order the destruction of a picture (and due to undelete programs read as destruction of the card/disk) is a judge.

If you're snipping shots away at a document that is clearly labeled "FOR EYES ONLY MOST SECRET" and get caught, that camera, and probably you, will both get shot, tried for treason, and thrown in Gitmo.

I don't know about English law, but here the offense is obstruction of justice. The offense is not insofar as the destruction of evidence (which would only constitute a civil case in most states, correct me if I'm wrong) but the hindrance to the prosecution or the defense.

...and as a point of clarification, it is not ILLEGAL for a police officer to ask you to do anything. It only becomes illegal when one of you acts. Just about the only things that an officer can't do is violate due process and lie...and, of course, anything that is explicitly illegal.

I cannot comment on US law and as such was only informing how it is in the UK. However, as regarding US law, if you delete pictures at the requerst of a police officer, then he must have thought you are doing something wrong and as such has he not then violated due process??

Matt