Police vigilance ?

[Socceroo]

Lexi,

What part of my post indicates that i do not treat it as a serious matter?

I only disagree with your idea that we should give away our Civil Liberties by offering to register at a Police Station or wear / carry a badge or ID for the purposes of carrying out a law abiding activity.

If this were to happen then the doors would open for all manner of ID cards and other mechanisms to be put into place which would impinge further on our Civil Rights.

In this country just now it would seem that you are guilty until proven innocent.

[glasgowken]

It is a serious issue, but what has taking photographs in a public place, got to do with security ?

[Lexi]

Socceroo wrote

Lexi,

What part of my post indicates that i do not treat it as a serious matter?

I only disagree with your idea that we should give away our Civil Liberties by offering to register at a Police Station or wear / carry a badge or ID for the purposes of carrying out a law abiding activity.

If this were to happen then the doors would open for all manner of ID cards and other mechanisms to be put into place which would impinge further on our Civil Rights.

In this country just now it would seem that you are guilty until proven innocent.

Hi Socceroo,

It was the part about marching down to the Police Station to sign up for badges that through me off. But now I can see from your latest comments its more about "Civil Rights" which is an entirely different subject. Without opening a can of worms, I just thought it would be no big deal to carry identification, such as a reporter would carry.

Lexi

[glasgowken]

I think the difference is reporters have access to various places as part of their job, so proper ID is essential.
All we are talking about is the freedom to use our cameras in public places without hassle from police, & others, or being treated as potential pervs or terrorist risks.


And this is from that link I posted earlier.

"A meeting of US security officials in Washington in March reportedly classified "people sitting on train platforms who appear to be monitoring the timing of arrivals and departures" as suspicious behaviour."

So even writing in a notepad, is suspicious. This is paranoia, not security.

[theduke]

I think the danger here is that things that start out as "voluntary" can quickly become compulsory. For example, the whole ID card debate is a case in point, you wouldn't have to carry one, but I'll bet you would soon find that day to day life wouldn't be that easy if you didn't....

[Lexi]

Ken wrote

"A meeting of US security officials in Washington in March reportedly classified "people sitting on train platforms who appear to be monitoring the timing of arrivals and departures" as suspicious behaviour."

So even writing in a notepad, is suspicious. This is paranoia, not security.

Hi Ken

Without turning this thread into a political debate and because I'm from a different culture all together. I suppose one could call it paranoia? But 911 changed all that for folk here in the US. What choice does our goverment have, after thousands of innocent lives were snuffed out in a blink of an eye? I suppose all one would need to do is speak with someone who lives in NYC and ask them if they mind the added security measures being taken?

Lexi

[glasgowken]

Hi Lexi, around the time of 9/11 I had regular contact with a couple of guys in the NYPD, including one in the ESU, so i'm not insensitive to the concerns. But I want those concerns to be focused and effective, not vague, and not so wide ranging that almost any innocent activity can be viewed with intense suspicion.

I'm honestly not having a go at you, but can you explain how taking photographs in a public place can be a security risk ?

And if it's such a problem, why is that security risk on public view in the first place ? Can't I simply look with my eyes and remember all the info I need to help plan an attack ?

[Pittsburgh]

I have just read through the posts and find this very interesting. I do have one question. Did someone call the police on futureTom or were they on the beat. From the description of the morning it would have been a really quick response time, granted it has been a few years since I lived in Glasgow but they were never that quick for anything. If they were on the beat I would have felt the same futureTom, sullied but left feeling they were doing their job. The cop did seem quite reasonable about it. I kind of want my officers knowing what is going on their beat. Someone did say they are "ways and "ways" of handling the situation" and I think futureTom handled it well.

One thing I have always wondered when people spout national security for restricting photography of public places. Have they looked at the internet recently? I can now take a street level tour of major US cities thanks to Google maps. I agree with Sharon that it is an exercise in image, it gives them something that they can say they did to improve security.

I did have a recent experience on the "other" side of the camera. I was in a museum when I saw some guy walk up and start taking pictures of my 2 year old playing. I think my words were "what are you up to pal?' After talking to him, it turned out he worked for the museum and was taking pictures for their website. He showed me ID has release forms and stuff. He had asked permission from the father of the kids she had been playing with to take pictures and didn't realize she was with me. After that I was happy to let him take pictures and she is now semi-famous, at least to her grandparents, on their website

[Dugald]

I find myself not quite in agreement with those who are opposed to being questioned by the police, and especially with regard to the idea of ID cards. The idea of having means of identification in Canada has been on the burner for quite some time, but I don't think it will become law for a while... well, not until the Yanks tell us it's a "must" anyway.

A law which makes it legal to ask for a person's identification, without apparent just cause, doesn't strike me as terribly unreasonable. I lived under such a law during the war and never did I ever feel it was any kind of an intrusion into my privacy, or in any way a danger to my well-being. At no time did I ever have any fear of being unjustly persecuted because of this law, and indeed I never was. To me it was a means of providing me with a better security.

Aside from the common occurrence of being asked to show my passport or bank cards at appropriate locations, I have only been asked to officially identify my person twice. Once, when riding my bicycle through Alexandria (near Balloch), when stopped by a police car for riding my bike without a rear light... I showed them my wartime British identity card. The second time was in Northern Ireland in 1978 when I was stopped by a police car, and six heavily armed policemen, and forced to show my passport. Aside from minor items of advice following the identification, I was allowed to carry on " without let or hindrance", or whatever the legal language is.

No, I wouldn't be worried about having to carry an identification card, and I don't see the need for ID's as being tied to this so-called war on terror: I'd feel the same way even if there were no military operations currently underway. Essentially, I feel that if one has nothing to hide, then one has nothing to fear regarding being called upon to identify one's self.

[Lexi]

Ken wrote

Hi Lexi, around the time of 9/11 I had regular contact with a couple of guys in the NYPD, including one in the ESU, so i'm not insensitive to the concerns. But I want those concerns to be focused and effective, not vague, and not so wide ranging that almost any innocent activity can be viewed with intense suspicion.

I'm honestly not having a go at you, but can you explain how taking photographs in a public place can be a security risk ?

And if it's such a problem, why is that security risk on public view in the first place ? Can't I simply look with my eyes and remember all the info I need to help plan an attack ?

Hi Ken,

Let me try to sum this up in as few words as possible.

Talking photos in public places is not a security risk to us, but the police may see it differently that's all I'm saying.

Folk should be allowed to take pictures while walking down the street or sitting on a bus without being hassled by the police, without question. However to me, its not a bother if a policeman stopped and asked me why I was taking a certain picture? I have nothing to hide and if he asked me for indentification, then I would show it and be on my way.

Furthermore, in regards to my previous comments regarding 911. All emergency personal here in the United States are on highten alert, this would include fireman, rescue, police, hospitals, etc. You can't tell me its only here in the US, because when I passed through Glasgow airport last year, they had a large bin to drop your "pens" into. No Pens on the Planes? Didn't have to surrender my pens flying out of New York.

Lexi

[Socceroo]

I find myself not quite in agreement with those who are opposed to being questioned by the police, and especially with regard to the idea of ID cards.

There's a surprise

A law which makes it legal to ask for a person's identification, without apparent just cause, doesn't strike me as terribly unreasonable.

Bang on form today Dugald

Stop for a moment and think about others. ID cards and being questioned by the Police would not really cause me any day to day problems.

That is because i am a white, 40 year old male who wears a suit to work every day.

If ID cards were in place and the Police had greater powers to question people then every non Caucasian male and indeed female in this country would be harassed on a regular basis.

Now that for me is a big problem.

[Apollo]

Without picking on any specific items, it's also worth bearing in mind that despite vetting and checking of backgrounds, those given the power to challenge, inspect and question are, at the end of the day, just privileged members of the public like you and I, or more importantly, certain members of the public who have ulterior motives for installing themselves in positions of trust.

All this diversionary nonsense along the lines of "If you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about?" all serves to divert attention from the dangers that releasing "Stop and Question" and "Stop and Search" powers, without cause or reason, bring.

You can already see it on the copious TV police documentaries, where the officers now freely state that they pull vehicles over just "Because they can" without cause or reason, and demand the driver's details.

If the power is given, it will used.

The problem is not with the genuine officers doing their duty, I've been pleased to be stopped by them for a few minutes, but the hard core out to make numbers (and they are there, you know them once they've pulled you).

More serious are the perverts (by whatever name), who will be organised to use such new powers as this may bring, and use them to gain information and details on their future victims with relative ease.

Think that's scaremongering?

Just look at the paedophile and slavery rings being detected now in the UK, which seems to be an emerging capital for such activities, and consider the people involved.

[Dugald]

I find myself not quite in agreement with those who are opposed to being questioned by the police, and especially with regard to the idea of ID cards.

There's a surprise

A law which makes it legal to ask for a person's identification, without apparent just cause, doesn't strike me as terribly unreasonable.

Bang on form today Dugald
Stop for a moment and think about others. ID cards and being questioned by the Police would not really cause me any day to day problems.
That is because i am a white, 40 year old male who wears a suit to work every day.
If ID cards were in place and the Police had greater powers to question people then every non Caucasian male and indeed female in this country would be harassed on a regular basis.
Now that for me is a big problem.

Sorry for not responding sooner to your post of Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 Socceroo; I've been out of town all week. I see no reason to change my feelings about being asked by the police to identify myself; I still don't consider such a request unreasonable.

"Stop for a moment and think about others."

Okay, I have done this, and I appreciate how "every non Caucasian" type in the UK might be subjected more to this identification process than say, a white 40 year old male who wears a suit to work every day. But so what, is this not part of the price to be paid by someone who chooses to live among people who happen to have different physical characteristics than they do? If I were one of the non- Caucasian types mentioned by you, and I took exception to being asked to identify myself by the police, then I'd go and live someplace where I felt I would be treated exactly the same as the majority of the people who lived there.

"Now that for me is a big problem"

Socceroo, that, which for you is a big problem, is really just an aspect of racial profiling, and I believe any police force which fails to employ it, operates under a handicap: hey, if I'm a policeman, and I've been led to believe there's a gang dressed in kilts 'n sporrans terrorizing a neighbourhood, then I'm going to be especially suspicious of anyone I see dressed in a kilt 'n sporran!

Stretching a more topical analogy a wee bit: if I were a headmaster of a school in which child-custody problems had arisen that involved picture-taking, and I saw someone around my school with a camera, then I'd apply the same idea inherent in racial profiling, and I'd contact the police.

No, I don't see being asked to identify myself as harassment at all, unless of course it is done in a manner which could be reasonably construed as genuine harassment.

[crusty_bint]

Wtf? Your surnames not Rosenberg is it Dugald?

[Dugald]

Without picking on any specific items, it's also worth bearing in mind that despite vetting and checking of backgrounds, those given the power to challenge, inspect and question are, at the end of the day, just privileged members of the public like you and I, or more importantly, certain members of the public who have ulterior motives for installing themselves in positions of trust.

All this diversionary nonsense along the lines of "If you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about?" all serves to divert attention from the dangers that releasing "Stop and Question" and "Stop and Search" powers, without cause or reason, bring.

You can already see it on the copious TV police documentaries, where the officers now freely state that they pull vehicles over just "Because they can" without cause or reason, and demand the driver's details.

If the power is given, it will used.

The problem is not with the genuine officers doing their duty, I've been pleased to be stopped by them for a few minutes, but the hard core out to make numbers (and they are there, you know them once they've pulled you).

More serious are the perverts (by whatever name), who will be organised to use such new powers as this may bring, and use them to gain information and details on their future victims with relative ease.

Think that's scaremongering?

Just look at the paedophile and slavery rings being detected now in the UK, which seems to be an emerging capital for such activities, and consider the people involved.

Apollo, sorry for the delay in answering your Post of Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:32... I was out of town. Yes, I agree, those given the power to challenge, inspect, and question, are members of the public, just like you and I, but I'm not too sure of the "privileged" bit. Is it really a "privilege" to check the identity of people? Soldiers too, check identities; do you think soldiers would consider this onerous task as a privilege? I see it as just a part of a job description and cannot imagine there being anything in asking someone to identify themselves, as being thought of as a privilege.

I am speaking of people in general, not of the few bad apples that appear in any cross-section of society; that is, the minority who might be expected to have ulterior motives for installing themselves in positions of trust. I hope I am right when I say that I believe most of our police personnel have motives more in line with helping to uphold the law and not something that could be described as "ulterior".

"If you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about?"

I have used this expression myself, and I see it as a clear cut and a perfectly valid thought. These "Stop and Question" and "Stop and Search" powers are not at all as sinister as suggested by the expressions themselves. A police person can ask one to identify oneself with a big genuinely friendly smile on his or her face. It's no big deal! What's diversionary about this?

"If the power is given, it will used. "

Well, it might, it might not. This "hard core out to make numbers" which you speak of , might well be classified as such by someone who has become one of these "numbers". If i for example, were the unhappy recipient of a speeding ticket, then I might be inclined to feel as you do... I'm not suggesting you have been the unhappy recipient of a speeding ticket from one of these cops interested only in using the power given by the job, not at all; but if "making numbers" refers to giving tickets for breaking traffic laws, then I'm all for them "making numbers".