For those who missed the other two threads on what lead to this event:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1280
and
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=787

Willis said:
Reading the law, it seems rather intrusive. I might feel differently if I lived somewhere where terrorism was fairly common.

That said, law or no law, its rediculous to me that they are targeting photographers. As I read it, this policy would apply to just about anyone for any reason.

Suppose for a moment that you are a constable. You see a man outside with a D3 & a few strobes... Is this guy really your terrorist? Nope. Photographers are a lot of different things, but inconspicuous just isn't one of them. If you want to go violate somebodies rights, go bug the shady looking guy with a cell phone camera. He's far more likely to be planning a terror plot than Chase Jarvis.

It is designed for everyone, but they are targeting photographers, because they are assuming they are planning to blow up whatever it is they are photographing. Plus they are an easy target.

I think this has been posted before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAY3nqv_JKE

Dur.. isn't it easier to use google maps and google images?

As for your bust card, havent seen that one before, i've got a similar one which was home made.
I also normally wear this.

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/+photographer_not_terrorist_white_tshirt,29977485

and to really annoy the police this. (uk police hate hoodies)

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/+photographer_not_terrorist_zip_hoodie_dark,373176286

Mac.

Here's the "bust card" I carry, incase anyone hasn't seen it before.

http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/

Reading the law, it seems rather intrusive. I might feel differently if I lived somewhere where terrorism was fairly common.

That said, law or no law, its rediculous to me that they are targeting photographers. As I read it, this policy would apply to just about anyone for any reason.

Suppose for a moment that you are a constable. You see a man outside with a D3 & a few strobes... Is this guy really your terrorist? Nope. Photographers are a lot of different things, but inconspicuous just isn't one of them. If you want to go violate somebodies rights, go bug the shady looking guy with a cell phone camera. He's far more likely to be planning a terror plot than Chase Jarvis.

It doesnt matter what you have in your pocket regarding what the police are/aren't allowed to do. Section 44 of the 2000 Terrorism act, allows them to search anyone. Regardless. Even if you are a member of the press, and are authorised to be at said location.

(Section 44. Authorisations
(1)An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a)the vehicle;
(b)the driver of the vehicle;
(c)a passenger in the vehicle;
(d)anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.

(2)An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a)the pedestrian;
(b)anything carried by him.

(3)An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.

(4)An authorisation may be given—
(a)where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b)where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c)where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;
(d)where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.

(5)If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.)

The whole act is here.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-pb2-l1g44

over the last year i've been stopped about 5 times under this section 44.
Mind i work nights and travel mainly in the city, so its not surprising.

Mac.

Wish I could have been there but London is too far. I have a printout of basic rules and rights, what the police are/aren't allowed to do which I keep in my wallet, wish I didn't feel like I have to though.

TJGilbert21 said:
Wow! That's crazy! I had no idea such things were happening over there. Now that I've gotten an SLR, I've always wanted to go back and shoot, but now that sounds scary!

You just need to be aware of whether or not you're shooting at something sensitive or not. For the most part, I don't think you have much to worry about, unless if you live in UK of course.

Wow! That's crazy! I had no idea such things were happening over there. Now that I've gotten an SLR, I've always wanted to go back and shoot, but now that sounds scary!

So far, I've never been harassed in San Francisco. It's either the liberal attitude, or the reliance on tourist's that's probably saving me.

If there's a petition or letter writing campaigne around anywhere let us all know.

Wow, that is a really intrusive law. Here, perhaps the police will stop you and question you, but not go through everything that you have.

That's just nuts and no wonder they're all outraged.

I would Niko, but England is just to far away. Maybe you should organize one in good old Texas, just leave your firearms at home.

Pete

I feel for the UK photographers.

It's been getting worse and worse every year.

No, but I would have if I could ...

Did anyone here attend the Section 44 Protest?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/23/photography.protest/index.html?hpt=T2