Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The British government has made certain places in the country areas where, if you take pictures of them, the police can stop and search you even without probable cause. There's just one little problem: They won't tell anyone what they can and can't photograph.
The Home Office has rejected a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the BJP regarding the disclosure of the list of all areas where police officers are authorised to stop-and-search photographers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000....While it is common knowledge that the entire City of London, at the behest of the Metropolitan Police, is covered by the legislation, it remains unclear which other areas in England and Wales have requested the stop-and-search powers.
The British Journal of Photography has filed a request to find out which areas allow such intrusions by the police, but the government won't tell them:
After growing concerns from BJP readers, some of whom say they have been abusively stopped from taking pictures around the country, news editor Olivier Laurent filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office on 24 April. The request asked for a 'full list of all areas - in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - subject to Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 authorisations, which the Home Office has a statutory duty to be aware of.'The request was rejected in late May on grounds of national security. 'In relation to authorisations for England and Wales, I can confirm that the Home Office holds the information that you requested. I am, however, not obliged to disclose it to you,' writes J Fanshaw of the Direct Communications Unit at the Home Office. 'After careful consideration we have decided that this information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 24(1) and Section 31(1)(a-c) of the Freedom of Information Act.'
'Section 24(1) provides that information is exempt if required for the purposes of safeguarding National Security. Section 31(1)(a-c) provides that information is exempt if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the administration of justice.'
The Home Office continues: 'In considering the public interest factors in favour of disclosure of the information, we gave weight to the general public interest in transparency and openness. This was considered in balance with not disclosing the information due to law enforcement and National Security issues.'
According to the Home Office's Direct Communications Unit, the disclosure of a Section 44 authorisation in a particular area is an operational matter for the police force covering that area. 'The Home Office believes that as Section 44 authorisations are used with up to date intelligence, to make any specific authorisation public could inadvertently release sensitive information. A list of authorisations that are in place could also allow any terrorists to act outside of them.
Rather disturbing.
Politics
Comments
So it's illegal to know when you're violating the law?
Posted by: llewelly | June 19, 2009 9:09 AM
No surprise there- recently terror legislation has been used in the UK by local councils spying on people to check whether they have lied on school application forms, and at the recent G20 protests they also used the same legislation to remove press photographers while they 'cleared' an area of protestors- the same day they were filmed attacking a man (who later died) as well as assaulting a woman with little apparent reason.
It isn't just the states where this happens I'm afraid
Posted by: symball | June 19, 2009 9:17 AM
So basically you can't use a camera in Great Britain anymore?
Posted by: Brandon | June 19, 2009 9:39 AM
No photography in London, ever.
Yet London is by all accounts the city most saturated with surveillance cameras.
Considering the next post, the only possible conclusion is that the Home Office houses some exceedingly clever rabbis.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 19, 2009 9:50 AM
If someone wanted to do something like Google Earth/North Korea, get an armada of photographers to take pictures within sight of police EVERYWHERE in the UK. Keep track of where photographers get stopped, and map the results. Sounds like a job for a flashmob/anarchist/Anonymous sort of group.
Posted by: chancelikely | June 19, 2009 10:13 AM
Ah, but they don't have to stop you - only if they feel like it. It's completely arbitrary.
Posted by: Dunc | June 19, 2009 10:16 AM
The article only mentions the City of London, which is basically the financial district. Greater London would be a different story.
Posted by: eric | June 19, 2009 10:58 AM
Actually, their response is perfectly logical!
They say, 'Section 24(1) provides that information is exempt if required for the purposes of safeguarding National Security. Section 31(1)(a-c) provides that information is exempt if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the administration of justice.'
Well, if they told you where it was illegal to take photos, it would 'prejudice the prevention of crime' because it would prevent your crime of photography!
Wait, strike that, reverse it...
Posted by: Squiddhartha | June 19, 2009 11:03 AM
Well, also there is evidence that UK police are very selective about who they confront about illegal photography:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McB9tsabPn0&feature=fvst
Posted by: James Sweet | June 19, 2009 11:30 AM
Oops, that was Australia, not the UK. Stupid me.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 19, 2009 11:33 AM
Just for our American friends: that's called "satire"*. ;)
Also note how low-key the security response was. Even a potential terrorist is greeted with "Ah, mate you can't film here."
How would Jack Bauer and his testosterone-fuelled tossers react at the reactor? -DJ
________________________
*(you might have get a Canadian to 'splain it to you, eh?)
Posted by: DingoJAck | June 19, 2009 11:51 AM
Well the situation here is obvious, Torchwood and the Ark have to protect us from aliens and the creatures coming out of the Anomalies. Previous to this season... oh wait...
Never mind.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 19, 2009 12:08 PM
@symball #2:
Wrong. Local authorities have been granted no surveillance powers under legislation, anti-terror or otherwise. You're thinking of RIPA (The Regulation of Investigative Powers Act); which, so far as local authorities are concerned, limited the use of powers that they already had by requiring specific authorisation of directed and covert surveillance. I repeat - the Act granted local authorities no powers whatsoever, it simply restricted the use of the powers they already had.
There are extra powers in the Act, but they are granted to police and security services, not to local authorities.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 19, 2009 1:10 PM
I have visions of some guy with a camera walking around in the UK saying "Can you arrest me now?"
Posted by: BaldApe | June 19, 2009 1:11 PM
Oops - "Investigatory"
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 19, 2009 1:11 PM
It's not surprising that the UK government are being so repressive about photography - a couple of decades ago we got rid of internment without trial in Northern Ireland (which was used to hold suspected terrorists - some of whom were exactly that, but far from all), but the current government is keen to establish internment for 90 days in the whole of the UK. Yes, the Prime Minister wants to have the right to lock anybody up for 3 months just because some cops or officials want it. Being brown-skinned and sassy is usually considered a sufficient justification.
The current Prime Minister is a cowardly lying bastard with almost no morals. As Chancellor of the Exchequer (the Finance Minister), he was number two in the Blair government between 1997 and 2007. When Tony Blair (a religious nutter like Bush) wanted to invade Iraq to glorify God, Brown didn't have the moral courage to either come out against the war (which might have prevented UK involvement) or to support it publicly (risking opprobrium) but said nothing until his arse was kicked and Blair told him that no way was Brown staying in his job unless he supported the official line.
Personally, I suspect Brown might have had the brains to be against the war, realising what a crock of shite the pretexts were, but he was so obsessed with getting The Top Job that the deaths of thousands of people was not that important to him.
Just a couple of days ago, this bag of shit spoke about how he was in favour of "openness and transparency" before telling us the next day that we aren't going to get a public inquiry into the Iraqi invasion and occupation. Instead Brown was going to give us ask 3 of his friends to hold an inquiry which was not allowed to apportion blame or to make recommendations, and all its evidence would be hear in secret.
The technical term for that is "whitewash". Predictably there was an outcry.
And because Brown is a cowardly liar as well as being a lying coward, he then backtracked and said that the inquiry chairman could choose to hear some evidence in public if it chose. But Brown hadn't the integrity to admit "Er, I see my mistake, I've changed my mind", no, this lying liar and cowardly coward tried to pretend this was his plan all along.
So now, like in 1995-97, we have a Dead Government Walking and the population is saying "For the sake of the country, go, go now, go quietly, leave!".
The prospect afterwards is not too good. Heaven forfend that Labour get back in; the damage this bunch of arseholes would do if they got back in is unthinkable, because they'd claim a mandate for their most repressive and anti-social policies. If they lose, hopefully they'll revert to a more socially aware party, rescuing it from the neo-conservative entryists who hijacked the party in the 1990s. Unfortunately the main opposition party, the Conservatives, is a bunch of self-serving non-entities with the intelligence and moral standards of sewer rats. It's difficult to predict what they'll actually do when in power. They talk the talk, but really they're only interested in rich people. The only mildly sane and moderately popular party, the Liberal Democrats, have reasonably sensible policies (they actually like civil liberties!) but unfortunately most of the electorate doesn't want to vote for them.
Pity us, o pity us.
Especially those of us without moats to clean, or lakes in which to put our duck houses.
Posted by: Sam C | June 19, 2009 2:18 PM
DogmeatIB: YES!
Posted by: JustaTech | June 19, 2009 2:20 PM
I think British photographers should try to organize flash mobs (get it?) where a large number of people start taking pictures of one of these "illicit" landmarks simultaneously and then disperse just as quickly.
Posted by: Evan | June 19, 2009 3:52 PM
No pictures in London? Must be tough on tourists. What about the google vans taking street images? Are the drivers being arrested?
Posted by: Tom | June 19, 2009 4:07 PM
Just another bunch of polititians makeing dumb-assed decisions to control people cuz they is stupid and can do it. They do they same anti-photo BS here in USA too.
As soon as I heard this the 1st time I figured out 5 ways to take all the hi-res pictures I wanted of anything at anytime. These actions will be as effective at stopping 'terrorists' as the 'war on drugs' has stopped drug use. Stupid officials making stupid rules! Nothing changes.
Posted by: CybrgnX | June 19, 2009 6:10 PM
City of London != London. The City of London is the financial district - roughly one square mile. Filming and photography in London is perfectly legal.
Right at the moment our politicians can't do anything right. They're using our money to fund their lavish lifestyles, they won't tell us what they've been spending our money on (second homes and expensive gifts, mostly), they won't back measures designed to control their expenses, and they consistently back fear-mongering and civil-rights-curbing legislation. The "Freedom of Information Act" has been used recently to acquire a list of MPs' expenses, and half of it was blacked out. Some freedom.
Annoying stuff. It's tough when your country becomes a banana republic, it really is.
Posted by: Al West | June 20, 2009 9:04 AM
I heard that the banning of photography was because of the G20 protests, if the ban had been in force before hand then the whole incident with the police being caught beating ten tons out of protesters would not have happened, they would have beaten them, just wouldn't have gotten caught doing it. and if you can't take photos of places for 'security' purposes then is it just me or is it a bit daft for them to come out, search you and then tell you that you can't take pictures there, isn't that letting you know there is a security risk, I like chancelikelys idea, its one way of finding out where these places are
Posted by: Kim | June 20, 2009 3:56 PM
the article seems a bit unclear. The city of london is just the central couple of miles and is managed by the city of london police not the met.
The anti terror laws in the uk are very unclear mostly seemingly down to poorly written legislation.
There is a law against taking pics of coppers for terrorist purposes and then there are the stop and search laws which under the anti terror act allows them to stop practically anyone for no reason.
Problem with both is the cops either not understanding the laws or misusing them, eg demanding tourists to delete photos although strangely they dont then fill the card up with random pics to prevent the person just swapping the card out, heading home and restoring them.
I take quite a few pics in london and havent been hassled to date i think it mainly depends on how bored the cops are
Posted by: kevinj | June 21, 2009 7:15 AM