There is no proposed ban, not least because even A. Blair realizes it couldn't be made to work.
What you have is a load of photographers being as hysterical and over-reactive as the red-top press and (on occasion) the government.
It is truly nice to see this sort goverment idiocy isn't confined to my side of the pond. (I was beginning to think we had beat out all contenders through volume alone. We do, of course, have the best player)
I think in this case the idiocy in question does not stem (directly) from the government. The petition's wording is misleading. There are no current UK government proposals to restrict the rights of photographers.
There is, however, a lot of confusion over what is and is not legally acceptable regarding photography in public places. There is a lot of public hysteria over terrorism and pedophilia, and photographers are bearing a good part of the brunt of this.
I have no regrets at having signed this petition.
The destination is important, but so is the journey
Originally Posted by Curt
It's the same reason that some people went insane and trashed Dixie Chicks' CDs more than a few years ago...
There is no legislation proposed. At all. None. Nada.
The "petition" is one person's reaction to a knee-jerk sound-bite given by that drunken oaf of a London Mayor's reply to a paedophile witch-hunt instigated by the grimiest of the gutter press. Nothing more.
Other considerations raised here have their valid points, but the idea of legislation to restrict photography is patently ridiculous and no one has ever seen such a suggestion in the real world.
Might as well start a petition against the wearing of day-glow condoms in public...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Bob F.
Now thats something that really gets me!!! Lets do it!!!
Even if there is no ban proposed, we should protest against it, just in case... I would say, suppress paranoic ideas before they grow roots. Btw I would be very curious how they would prevent people taking photographs with cellphones. I bet that within 1 or 2 years you won't be able to find one without a built in camera with 2-6 Megapixel.
Have you seen the light..?
Maybe they could let photographers do their thing while wearing a big yellow jacket and a large conical hat with a flag and flashing lights all plastered with special biometric ID and official licenses. Plus, photographers would be required to embed a RFID chip inside their scull that feeds their data to the Data Collection Centers which apart from wireless surveillance they carry stereo cameras, ultra sensitive microphones and of course loudspeakers.
Film would be abolished and only specially produced digital cameras would be used that have software that detects "unethical", "suspicious" and unauthorised subjects when the lens focuses at them. The camera then would not fire the shutter, make a loud alarm sound and feed the information to the closest DCC and police officer.
Any infraction would lead to public beatings, prison terms in secret detention centers, amputations, the loss of not only the photography licence but of civil rights and even the death sentence.
To get a license you would have to go through five years of hard and complex bureaucracy, which would collect every possible personal information and run it through every security database known and a simulation software which coupled with deep psychiatric evaluation would determine if you are prone to misuse the trust of the State. After getting the license, you are on strict probation for five years where a police officer follows you around and a special service checks all your daily activities.
I feel safer all ready!
Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
no digital additives and shit
Whether you have a camera or not, they will just grab you, and you'll be locked up somewhere for a long time. That's all.
Originally Posted by hadeer