Confused about when and where you can take a photo? Even perhaps confused about who you can photograph? I am and I'm meant to know.
What I do know is this; the BBC are talking rubbish with this
It's utter nonsense that you need to get a model release for a photo taken of someone if it's for personal use or 'editorial' use (i.e not advertising or endorsing a product).
The government as you are probably aware equate photograph taking with terrorists making a recce for an attack. Remember the poster asking you to report suspicious activity aka people taking photographs? No one has produced any evidence that terrorists actually photograph their targets. None. At all.
I love the idea that someone might think I appear "odd". Heavens, they won't be the first, but has any real terrorist been apprehended in the act of taking a photograph? Do terrorists use tripods and assistants and reflectors? (I asked this very question when I was quizzed by a police officer as I was photographing a gardener outside the Garden Museum earlier this year. His reply was "You can't be too careful". ) Oh gawd.
The home secretary's latest wheeze is Operation Argus. I won't go into detail here, other than to point you towards this site
The energy put behind disseminating the idea that photography is somehow suspicious or dubious is extraordinary. So much so, that the Home Secretary can make photographing a police officer a criminal offence. Why does our government 'export' the idea of democracy (to those who may or may not want it) when it's busy dismantling and curtailing it at home?
And why is the opposition so quiet about what is happening? Do we really need more paranoia? And isn't the spread of paranoia one of the terrorist's aims?
No comments:
Post a Comment